“If your method requires infinite storage space and computation speed to use, the problem is not that finite beings aren’t sufficiently rational, it’s that your method doesn’t work.”
(@nostalgebraist re Bayes, but applies to many rationalist fantasies.)http://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/161645122124/bayes-a-kinda-sorta-masterpost …
-
I disagree that this answers my criticisms. In particular, my section 7 argues that it's practically unfeasible to even write down most belief/decision problems in the form that the Bayesian laws require, so "were the laws followed" is generally not even *well-defined*.
To be a bit more precise, the framework with a complete hypothesis space is a bad model for the problems of interest, where the inability to work in such a space is part of the problem statement.
-
-
It's sort of like quoting an optimality result given access to some oracle, when talking about a problem without access to that oracle. If the preconditions of a theorem are not met in a given decision problem, "meet those preconditions" cannot be part of a strategy for it.
-
From my current draft write-up of the same point…pic.twitter.com/4rwwmY3TAG
-
-
And also this. In conclusion,
@nostalgebraist’s write-up is excellent, and afaict the LW commenters have missed his point.pic.twitter.com/fTZmD4Sg0f
-
The only sense I can make of EY’s post is that it’s a reiteration of the Dutch Book argument: “yeah, whatever, but if you play a fair betting game using some other math, you’ll lose.” Which is true. Fortunately, the Count of Flanders. Unfortunately, nihilistic depression.pic.twitter.com/RNXMSbeHrZ
-
I wish you guys posted these comments at the LW thread not Twitter, so that the people disagreeing with you could answer and I could follow the conversation. :-)
-
I care about you. I don’t care about LW :)
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.