= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Was that "exactly 95% confidence" or "at least 95% confidence"?
In response to
Too good to be true
Also, different studies have different statistical power, so it may not be OK to simply add up their evidence with equal weights.
In response to
Too good to be true
Was that "exactly 95% confidence" or "at least 95% confidence"?
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
(I highly recommend that everyone join the Google Group so that we can all communicate in a single place by email)
Does anyone else feel like trying to get this meeting a little bit more structured?
For example, something as simple as brief but prepared self-introductions covering your interests (related or unrelated to LW) and anything else about yourself that you might consider worth a mention. We partially covered it last time but it was pretty chaotic.
Or maybe someone even wants to give a brief talk about something they find exciting. Back in the day Jon used to educate us in computational neroscience, which was extremely interesting.
Also, on getting there:
The map in the post is not completely accurate, this is the actual location
Parking on Main St (across from campus, from TMC to ZaZa
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Hopefully, this time Valhalla should be open for, um, follow-up discussions. http://valhalla.rice.edu/
Oh yes, and last time somebody discovered that there's free parking on Main St across from campus (the stretch between Med Center and Hotel ZaZa).
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Hopefully, this time Valhalla should be open for, um, follow-up discussions. http://valhalla.rice.edu/
In response to
The Power of Noise
It seems that in the rock-scissors-paper example the opponent is quite literally an adversarial superintelligence. They are more intelligent than you (at this game), and since they are playing against you, they are adversarial. The RCT example also has a lot of actors with different conflicts of interests, especially money- and career-wise, and some can come pretty close to adversarial.
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Free parking is available in the small streets across Rice Boulevard from the campus (north of it). This is also closer.
The two requirements are that it be on the domain of probabilities (reals on 0-1), and that they nest properly.
Quaternions would be OK as far as the Born rule is concerned - why not? They have a magnitude too. If we run into trouble with them, it's with some other part of QM, not the Born rule (and I'm not entirely confident that we do - I have hazy recollection of a formulation of the Dirac equation using quaternions instead of complex numbers).
Here are some nice arguments about different what-if/why-not scenarios, not fully rigorous but sometimes quite persuasive: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
In case it's less than perfectly clear, I am very much not ruling out number 5; that's why it's there. But for obvious reasons there's not much I can say about how it might be true and what the consequences would be.
Even in a classical universe your knowledge is always going to be incomplete in practice. (Perfectly precise measurement is not in general possible. Your brain has fewer possible states than the whole universe. Etc.) So probabilistic reasoning, or something very like it, is inescapable even classically. Regardless, though, it would be pretty surprising to me if mere "underconfidence" (supposing it to be so) required a quantum [EDITED TO ADD: model of the] universe.
I'm not sure if we can say much about a classical universe "in practice" because in practice we do not live in a classical universe. I imagine you could have perfect information if you looked at some simple classical universe from the outside.
For classical universes with complete information you have Newtonian dynamics. For classical universes with incomplete information about the state you can still use Newtonian dynamics but represent the state of the system with a probability distribution. This ultimately leads to (classical) statistical mechanics. For universes with incomplete information about the state and about its evolution ("category 3a" in the paper) you get quantum theory.
[Important caveat about classical statistical mechanics: it turns out to be a problem to formulate it without assuming some sort of granularity of phase space, which quantum theory provides. So it's all pretty intertwined.]
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I was thinking about the introductions too; I think this time we probably can do something a bit more structured.
suggestion posted to the Google Group: