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.

DaFranker comments on The Wrongness Iceberg - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: alfredmacdonald 04 February 2013 09:02AM

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

Comments (27)

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

Comment author: DaFranker 04 February 2013 05:02:20PM *  2 points [-]

or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.

This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes' "Eliminating the impossible". A charitable reading would parse as:

"or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface."

Just wanted to make sure I'm not inventing new interpretations and that there's no hidden inferential distance.