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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ctbeiser
Yeah true, but as with all things Bayesian it seems to miss the point by letting the universe of discourse be effectively unbounded
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ctbeiser
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
At a non-metaphysical level, yeah you are unproblematically correct. In Bayesian reasoning the absence of evidence principle is just wrong.
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.