@semiotechnic Once you start saying X *more* likely than Y, you are quantifying. Seems unavoidable common sense.
@simplic10 @semiotechnic ...but I don't think that implies that P(red sox victory) is quantifiable.
-
-
@St_Rev@semiotechnic P(Red Sox Victory) is BOTH non-quantifiable AND has prob greater than 1/20M? -
@simplic10@semiotechnic Yes. You're mistaking abuse of notation for proof. Here P and > are shorthand for looser concepts of likelihood. -
@St_Rev@semiotechnic My point is you can "sandwich" P(RedSoxVic) between two classic lottery probabilities... odd to say incommensurate. -
@simplic10@semiotechnic I distinguished earlier between ordinal and cardinal likelihood. Compare to utility theory. To say u(X) > u(Y)... -
@St_Rev@semiotechnic What I find odd is that you are willing to say "a > X > b" but also "X is a completely different thing from a & c." -
@simplic10@semiotechnic Or, 'the sky is a weasel' < 'the sky is indigo' < 'the sky is blue' < 'the sky is not a weasel'. -
@St_Rev@semiotechnic@Meaningness All of these sound like category errors to me. -
@simplic10@St_Rev@semiotechnic That's kind of the point, isn't it? Some uncertainty can usefully be represented numerically, some can't. - 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@St_Rev@semiotechnic You just said "P(Red Sox victory)>P(1/20M)." Greater than operator trivially implies quantifiability, no? -
@St_Rev@semiotechnic And fact that it is >P(1/20M) implies a certain range of cardinal probs has been ruled out.
End of conversation
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.