= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vulture comments on Open thread, Dec. 29, 2014 - Jan 04, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (164)
In the Bayesian view, you can never really make absolute positive statements about truth anyway. Without a simplicity prior you would need some other kind of distribution. Even for computable theories, I don't think you can ever have a uniform distribution over possible explanations (math people, feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong!); you could have some kind of perverse non-uniform but non-simplicity-based distribution, I suppose, but I would bet some money that it would perform very badly.
Damn, I didn't intend to hit that Retract button. Stupid mobile. In case it wasn't clear, I do stand by this comment aside from the corrections offered by JoshuaZ.
Consistency forces you to have a simplicity based prior if you have a counteable set of non-overlapping hypotheses described using some finite collection of symbols (and some other minor conditions to ensure non-pathology). See prior discussion here. See also here for related issues.
You can act "as if" by just using the likelihood ratios and not operating with prior and posterior probabilities.