= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on What Bayesianism taught me - LessWrong
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 (201)
Note: It's not a linear trend. If you mention the name one million times, it does not make it one million times as likely. Also, being mentioned one million times by the same person is not the same evidence as being mentioned by one million people, once by each. And even that is not a linear trend.
Nobody said it was. In any case, I was talking about the amount of evidence, not about what does that imply in terms of belief probabilities.
A "linear trend" in probabilities would have big issues, of course, because there are hard caps at zero and one.
We have some misunderstanding here. My best guess is that you think evidence makes something likely, while the typical usage here is that evidence makes things more likely. An example: Imagine that according to your best knowledge, some thing X has a probability 0.000001. Now you get some new information E, and based on all the knowledge you have now, the probability of X is 0.000001001.
On one hand, the information E increased the probability of X from 0.000001to 0.000001001. This is what we mean by saying that E is an evidence for X. It made it more likely.
On the other hand, even the increased probability is pretty close to zero. Therefore, more likely does not imply likely or even worth considering seriously (you can imagine even more zeroes before the first nonzero digit).
Similarly, probability of Ygafalkufeoinencfhncfc is pretty close to zero, but not exactly zero. Mentioning it on a discussion forum (choosing this specific topic instead of other millions of topic that could have been chosen) slightly increases the probability (at the cost of those other topics that were not chosen to be mentioned). The change is very small, but technically it is an increase. That's why we call it evidence for Ygafalkufeoinencfhncfc.
I understand the argument. I don't accept it.