3/ doing my small part to establish Rationalist Adjacent Catholicism over here, waving my banner which says "DEUS VULT ... with p = 0.7"
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @MorlockP
it’s funny because those things are inherently contradictory
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @virgil_30
not at all! God can will all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean that our knowledge of what He wills is clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
That’s fair I do think that about hypotheses like “God exists” it doesn’t make much sense to assign a prior But “God wants X” maybe is different I also just hate Bayesianism it’s all wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @virgil_30
> “God exists” it doesn’t make much sense to assign a prior 100% agree...but I'll generalize. Priors are useful, for human knowledge about things. There either is or is not > 100 kg of gold inside Ceres. That fact is, one presumes, already locked into the universe. >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @virgil_30
2/ However, we humans don't know that fact. So we can talk about priors on this, but they're statements about our knowledge, not statements about reality. I thought about this a LOT in elementary school, thinking about probabilities of die rolls in progress vs completed >>>
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @virgil_30
3/ dice rolls that had not yet been observed. I concluded back then (and still believe) that we use the term probability for two distinct / unrelated things. When I learned about quantum uncertainty I was further convinced of this (before then I'd worried that dice rolls were
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @virgil_30
4/ maybe deterministic? I dunno. I was a weird kid.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
You did point out in this thread that priors are mental not actual But that makes them not probabilities! Credences are not probabilities
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @virgil_30
AHA! we may be in complete agreement assuming that the standard physics model is close to correct, then we have two concepts: * credences, about already instantiated things which we are partially ignorant of * probabilities, about things which are not yet instantiated
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
2/ my credence that the coin I flipped and which landed under the desk is that it is head with p=0.5 my prior / probability about rain 3 year from today is also p=0.5 ...but these are two entirely distinct concepts.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
I still don’t think the latter one is a probability
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @virgil_30
It's SOMETHING. It's not identical to a credence...or do you assert it is?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show 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.