Well unless we're talking about Bayesian statisticians, all Bayesianism is informal Bayes in the sense of not actually doing explicit math for most decision-making, but rather using it as heuristics and sanity checks.
-
-
Replying to @xuenay @quasicoherence
We’ve probably been over this before, and I’ve forgotten, and can’t easily check because I’m out walking and using phone, but if it’s to hand: is there any write-up of how this is supposed to work?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @quasicoherence
I guess the closest would be my comment titled "The core of LW Bayesianism" on your "Pop Bayesianism: cruder than I thought" post, as well as maybehttps://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CPP2uLcaywEokFKQG/toolbox-thinking-and-law-thinking …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay @quasicoherence
I can’t understand the toolbox/law one, unfortunately, despite extensive effort and discussion with EY
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @quasicoherence
Damn. :/ Also relevant, I remembered https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bkSkRwo9SRYxJMiSY/beautiful-probability … ; "You may not be able to compute the optimal answer. But whatever approximation you use, both its failures and successes will be explainable in terms of Bayesian probability theory."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xuenay @quasicoherence
Well, this one is just straightforwardly wrong, I think. If the new Law one says the same thing, then it’s also straightforwardly wrong… “This is a consistent set of axioms” does not imply that it applies to anything, much less to everything. Separate question from tractability.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think EY would disagree with that statement. I've read both of you extensively, and I strongly suspect your interpretive difficulties are coming from implicitly believing that you must have a major substantive disagreement with EY, when in fact you mostly don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is quite possible! Neither of us seems to be able to make any sense of what the other says, which I find quite puzzling. (Maybe he does too.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I wish I could get you two in a room and attempt to translate into each others' conceptual language. My current diagnosis is something like: you are concerned about eternalism, and so keep emphasizing emptiness. EY is concerned about nihilism, and so keeps emphasizing form.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PeterBorah @Meaningness and
This is pretty much how I read the Law post. He's trying to show why investigating form ("Law thinking") needn't be eternalism, and why nihilism ("pure toolbox thinking") is incoherent. At the end he pretty explicitly starts playing with the non-duality of Law and Toolbox.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well, that’s a startlingly different interpretation than any I came up with!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @PeterBorah and
I do think you are right that he’s trying to fight off nihilism, which he sees looming.
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.