That particular example is just true, isn’t it? (Arithmetic isn’t my strong suit)
I didn't think DBA appeared there until later? Anyway, from the end: "We have multiple spotlights all shining on the same core mathematical structure, saying dozens of different variants on, 'If you aren't running around in circles or stepping on your own feet or...
-
-
...wantonly giving up things you say you want, we can see your behavior as corresponding to this shape. Conversely, if we can't see your behavior as corresponding to this shape, you must be visibly shooting yourself in the foot.'"
-
So, my rephrasing would be something like: if a situation behaves in a way such that probability/decision theory works well when you apply it to that situation, then you should definitely do so. Which I agree with! It’s great when it works! In most situations, it doesn’t apply.
-
But when is it that you can't apply it?(By applying it I mean approximating it). What heuristics or methods are there that are superior to DT sometimes that are not approximations of it?
-
DT simply doesn’t apply unless there’s a global metric of goodness (and there isn’t one). When there is a large space of actions and outcomes, it can’t even be “approximated” by any physical agent. And, there is no general theory even of what it *means* to approximate DT.
-
I'll have to disagree with that, I'll blog about this soon, twitter is not the best place for arguing.
-
I look forward to reading it! Heading to bed now. Thank you all for an interesting conversation! Good night!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.