You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RolfAndreassen comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: potato 17 November 2011 10:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (120)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 17 November 2011 10:54:29PM *  0 points [-]

What does 'first observed' mean? It seems like the sort of thing that someone with a passing knowledge of quantum mechanics would make up, giving a privileged status to conscious observers.

Apart from this objection, I see both in the post and in some of the comments a confusion about the meaning of 'grue'. Take again the definition:

An object is grue iff it is first observed before time T, and it is green, or it is first observed after time T, and it is blue.

Notice that no object ever changes colour. A green object, first observed before time T, is still grue provided it remains green until the end of time; the definition only refers to the colour at the time of first observation, not at the current moment. To say that an object is grue at time T-1 is not to predict that it will turn blue at time T; it is a prediction that it will remain green for all time.

Edit: Never mind the rest of the comment, I made a silly mistake.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 18 November 2011 02:49:35AM 0 points [-]

I didn't mean to sound harsh at all btw; I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from making mistakes publicly on LW, which is a great place to have mistakes corrected.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 18 November 2011 12:08:12AM *  0 points [-]

A successful prediction does not weaken a hypothesis.

Also, your argument works just as well for G as for g; therefore, a green emerald is evidence against emeralds being green and against emeralds being grue.

You made an arithmetic mistake. I figured you might want to try and find it yourself, and reasoned: if you do want to be told, you can just ask, but if I had assumed you wanted to be told and was wrong, I couldn't untell you.

The assumption that P(O) is P(G) + P(g) is also incorrect; there is also the hypothesis that half the emeralds are green, for example. But either way you shouldn't end up with P(g|O) < P(g).

Comment author: wedrifid 18 November 2011 01:01:40AM 2 points [-]

A successful prediction does not weaken a hypothesis.

It can weaken it relative to a competing hypothesis.