= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open Thread, April 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
So we could like exclude computations of expressions, and consider only probabilities of "basic events", assuming that the concept shows to be coherent. We might ask about a probability of a coin flip, but not two coins. Speaking about coins, the "quantum of probability" is simply 1/2, end of story.
Well, I don't even know what could be a "basic event" at the bottom level of the universe -- the more I think about it, the more I realise my ignorance of quantum physics.
I don't see where the "basic event"/"computation of expression" distinction gets us anywhere useful. As you say, even defining it clearly is problematic, and whatever definition we use it seems that any event we actually care about is not "basic."
It also seems pretty clear to me that my mind can represent and work with probabilities smaller than 1/2, so restricting ourselves to domains of discourse that don't require smaller probabilities (e.g., perfectly fair tosses of perfectly fair coins that always land on one face or the other) seems unhelpful.