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.

abramdemski comments on Re: Second-Order Logic: The Controversy - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: abramdemski 05 January 2013 10:33AM

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

Comments (7)

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

Comment author: abramdemski 06 January 2013 02:26:22AM 0 points [-]

I agree that we should weigh possible foundations against desired results and respect multiple possibilities as you say. However, we need a formalization of this. It might be that 1st order vs 2nd order is not important. I would suggest, however, that the puzzle I presented in the post is important. The proof-theoretic structure of 1st vs 2nd order might not be a big deal. (A learning system which prefers compact first-order theories can learn the desired many-sorted logic.) The structure of reasonable probabilistic beliefs over these two domains, though, is another thing yet! (A learner which prefers compact first-order theories cannot mimic the desired behavior which I described.)

You won't automatically get the desired behavior by constructing some sort of intuitive learner based on informal principles. So, we need to discuss formalism.