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.

Azathoth123 comments on What are your contrarian views? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Metus 15 September 2014 09:17AM

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

Comments (806)

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

Comment author: Azathoth123 25 September 2014 12:36:46AM 1 point [-]

It seems like such a thing is either provably possible or (more likely) provably impossible. Know of anything like that?

Btrettel's example of ray tracing in thermal radiation is such a model. Another example from social science: basic economic and game theory often assume the agents are omniscient or nearly omniscient.

Comment author: AABoyles 25 September 2014 01:56:13PM 0 points [-]

False: Assuming something is infinite (unbounded) is not the same as coercing it to a representation of infinity. Neither of those examples when represented in code would require a declaration that thing=infinity. That aside, game theory often assumes players have unbounded computational resources and a perfect understanding of the game, but never omniscience.

Comment author: lackofcheese 25 September 2014 11:57:25PM 0 points [-]

A better term is "logical omniscience".