But once you go so far as to map certain parts of the system onto preference and belief, the coherence theorems hold like the theorems they are. In that sense they're more universal, and less physically informative, than thermodynamics.
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
Most mappings on the system will be useless. If you regard a particular molecule as having compact preferences and beliefs, it will probably do very poorly. Human beings do have relatively compact preferences and beliefs, on the other hand, and applying it to humans make sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
This is not because humans obey the prescriptions of decision theory. It is because humans are making things that can be viewed as decisions. This is not because human beliefs are coherent. It's because humans can be well-viewed as believing things even if incoherently.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
It seems to me that you don't understand the very abstract use that is being made of decision theory. It's not a recipe or an algorithm. It's a generalization relating coherent or incoherent behavior to performance, making far more minimal assumptions than you seem to think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well… I *think* I understand this; but I may be wrong! We clearly have very different cognitive styles, which makes it difficult for us to understand each other.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Seems like DT is used as Tool or Law. Many tools useful depending on agent/context/intent/goal. DT as Law analyzes agents/tools generally. Are there alternates? As Tool => yes, As Law => no(?) Am I Accurate? Helpful? Else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @michaelporcelli @ESYudkowsky and
I guess I’m not sure enough I understand what
@ESYudkowsky means by Law to respond to this confidently!2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
I think by Law he probably means “a set of mathematical constraints that apply if you accept a particular set of axioms.” If you accept that set of axioms, then that is indeed the unique set of constraints that apply.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Could be a Kantian-style transcendental argument — given agents, goals, & decisions, then what must be the world be like in order for these to exist as they do. Ergo DT!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michaelporcelli @ESYudkowsky and
Possibly. My interest is in “how do formal systems relate to the world.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The world doesn’t inherently have agents, goals, or decisions in it; those are concepts we apply to it. We can think about those in many different ways, which will have different consequences.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
DT is one way of thinking about agents, goals, and decisions, which has particular consequences at the level of constraints, completely setting aside methods. Sometimes that’s a useful way of thinking; sometimes it isn’t.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
In other words, the conceptual system itself is a tool. So, maybe
@ESYudkowsky is right after all! I do think DT is merely a tool—once you try to apply it to reality, as opposed to considering it as abstract mathematics.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 8 more replies
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.