All formal methods share this limitation, but Bayesianism is the E. coli of rationalism: so simple that it makes the failure mode obvious.
-
-
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Only in fantasy-land. It’s the most unknowable thing there is, by definition. It can’t be approximated.
-
“Can’t be approximated” is one of the main themes in Chaitin’s work, which is worth reading if you are interested in the area!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, this is a classic example of a “wrong-way reduction”: https://meaningness.com/wrong-way-reduction …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Right! As with formal rational methods generally, it works extremely well in some cases, if you apply it intelligently.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The issue is with formalism per se. It is always relative to a vocabulary, and doesn’t explain where you get one:https://meaningness.com/metablog/bongard-meta-rationality …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Right; that’s pretty much the strong vs weak Bayesianism distinction in the essay.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i've written about that as well: http://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/160975105374/on-miris-logical-induction-paper …
- 6 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.