I’ve always thought ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ is flawed for material truths because of the second law: presence of X, X being at different entropy from background, would necessarily produce evidence.
No fire without smoke basically en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_
Conversation
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Replying to
Yeah true, but as with all things Bayesian it seems to miss the point by letting the universe of discourse be effectively unbounded
1
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Replying to
If you allow everything from simulation hypothesis to Pascal’s wager as a frame of reference of course you’ll always find an interpretation where absence is weak evidence of something. I find it more useful to work with narrower worlds.
Example: I don’t see an elephant in my room right now. In a tight reference universe that’s evidence of absence of an elephant in my room.
In a simulator universe it’s possible simulators have just turned off my visibility of elephant for lulz
I don’t find that interesting 🙂
1
1
Show replies
