I'm having trouble imagining by what stretch of the imagination you could call decision theory an account of reality and then declare it to be false. What does a universe look like in which decision theory is 'true'?
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @juliagalef
I misunderstood you as saying that it was a true account of reality (and not merely useful in practice). I guess I am missing your point if that is not the case?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef
I'm missing your point because I don't understand what it means for decision theory to be a "true account of reality", and hence I can neither confirm nor deny that I believe this to be the case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @juliagalef
Oh well. I guess we’re both talking past each other. It’s a bit puzzling. I can usually eventually understand other people’s worldviews, but I find yours unusually resistant :)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
(?) It sounds like 'true theory of reality' is something that could be occupied only by a final theory of physics. Decision theory just tells you the objectively best way of acting to satisfy a set of preferences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
“Objectively best” assuming a set of axioms is satisfied. There can sometimes be a bait-and-switch or motte-and-bailey here when you try to apply this to a concrete real-world situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Do you have a specific example in mind?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, to get decision theory to apply, you have to characterize the situation in terms of a set of well-defined actions, well-defined outcomes, well-defined goodnesses, and you need some meaningful way of estimating probabilities. None of those are objectively given.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel and
Writing this tweet, I have an unbounded number of possible things to say; an inconceivable set of possible outcomes; no clearly-defined goals; and any numerical probabilites would be meaningless. Do you know about aardvark cucumbers?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is, an epistemic, not ontological problem. One can hold that 1)DT is the best way of deciding, objectively 2)DT cannot be applied in its textbook form, just approximated As GA Cohen said, just because one cannot reach some tasty grapes doesn't mean they are less tasty
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No physically realizable being could anticipate all the absurd things I might say, nor what might follow from that, nor the goodness of the outcome. Someone might understand my point and remember it vividly because of the aardvark cucumbers…
-
-
(and I agree!)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.