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.

Mark_Friedenbach comments on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 26 January 2015 12:46AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (431)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (431)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 27 January 2015 09:43:35PM *  1 point [-]

Taboo the word Bayesian.

I was talking about the Bayesian interpretation of probability. An interpretation, not a category of person. Quantum mechanics without hidden variables uses the frequentist interpretation of probability.

Sometimes in life we use probability in ways that are frequentist. Other times we use probability in ways that are Bayesian. This should not be alarming.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 27 January 2015 11:31:53PM 1 point [-]

Fair enough. The idea of calling QM 'frequentist' really stretches the reason for using that term under anything but an explicit collapse interpretation. Maybe it would be more of a third way -

  • Frequentism would be that the world is itself stochastic.
  • Fractionism would be that the world takes both paths and we will find ourselves in one.
  • Bayes gets to keep its definition.
Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit