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.

Coscott comments on Bayesian probability as an approximate theory of uncertainty? - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: cousin_it 26 September 2013 09:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (35)

Comments (35)

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

Comment author: Coscott 26 September 2013 09:51:39PM 1 point [-]

Thank you. I have not seen that theorem, and this is very helpful and interesting. It is incredibly similar to what I was doing. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to vote up pragmatist's comment.

Comment author: cousin_it 27 September 2013 11:32:02AM *  2 points [-]

I think most LWers working on these topics are already aware of Savage's approach. It doesn't work on AMD-like problems.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 27 September 2013 01:52:06PM 0 points [-]

Are there any posts describing what goes wrong?

Comment author: cousin_it 27 September 2013 02:28:30PM *  1 point [-]

Piccione's paper, mentioned in Wei's post on AMD, says:

Savage's theory views a state as a description of a scenario which is independent of the act. In contrast, "being at the second intersection" is a state which is not independent from the action taken at the first, and, consequently, at the second intersection.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit