Actually, more important question. Do people saying "rationality = Bayes's Rule" exist outside of 's imagination? I cannot personally recall ever reading anything to this effect, and there *was* a time when I read all the comments on lesswrong.com.
Conversation
Admittedly, my memory is terrible, and I tend to spend my time talking only to the smarter communityfolk rather than the craziest members of the species. But it would help in writing to correct this fallacy, if I had one single example of this fallacy ever being commited, ever.
2
9
Good question. I had the vague memory that such claims had been made (about epistemic rationality, not instrumental), but can't recall who/where. I can search... or maybe can point me to some?
2
4
I REALLY don’t want to do this, because it’s dumb and I don’t care and it gets people mad. Unfortunately I am dumb, so:
“Probability theory is the set of laws underlying rational belief.”
“decision theory is the set of laws underlying rational action”
2
20
I take “the” here as meaning “the complete and unique” set of laws.
That reading is supported by “All of this does not quite exhaust the problem of what is meant in practice by “rationality,” for two major reasons.” >
2
2
-> The other two considerations are computational complexity and bizarre edge cases that don’t seem relevant.
This leaves out differential equations as part of rationality (they are not subsumed in probability theory).
2
2
How would you interpret differential equations as part of rationality? Is there some situation where like...the best thing to do is defined by a differential equation?
1
Ok, so you mean situations where some phenomenon is modeled by a differential equation.
But...why aren’t those statistical models? You can definitely write all the same laws as stochastic equations (where the noise is experimental error or whatever).
4
1
Not quite that but adjacent...





