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.

gRR comments on Logical Uncertainty as Probability - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: gRR 29 April 2012 10:26PM

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

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gRR 30 April 2012 03:40:41AM 1 point [-]

I don't think the construction actually requires instant propagation. It requires a certain calculation to be made when you wish to assign a probability to a particular statement, and this calculation is provably finite.

In your example, you are free to have X contain "A" and "A=>B", and not contain "B", as long as you don't assign a probability to B. When you wish to do so, you have to do the calculation, which will find that B∈OLC(X), and so will assign P(B)=1. Assigning any other value would indeed be inconsistent for any reasonable definition of probability, because if you know that A=>B, then you have to know that P(A)≤P(B), and then if P(A)=1, then P(B) must also be 1.