- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:12:00 -0800

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 02:05:20PM -0500, Jacques M Mallah wrote:

*> To say that I affect the outcome is to say that my mental
*

*> processes, or computation, determines the result, which is still true.
*

*> And the utility function, for my decision making, must be calculated by me
*

*> with different scenarios for each possible decision-outcome, because I do
*

*> not know what my own computation is.
*

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now. But of course you have to

use an approximation instead of the actual theory to do this calculation.

So the question is what approximation do you use, or more fundamentally

how do you tell whether an approximation is a good one? The major problem

I see is that the approximation has to handle counter-factual scenarios.

What is to prevent it from giving arbitrary predictions in those

scenarios, since you can't compare those predictions with the actual

theory?

*> Would such a theory be unique? If so, and I doubt it but would
*

*> like it to be true, it would make sense to speak of information content as
*

*> a well defined quantity.
*

*> Then we would have a mathematical theory of information content,
*

*> as well a theory of physics. The theory of physics, however, would have
*

*> zero information content, as defined by the other theory.
*

See the new thread I started with subject "information content of

measures."

Received on Sat Jan 09 1999 - 02:13:14 PST

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:12:00 -0800

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 02:05:20PM -0500, Jacques M Mallah wrote:

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now. But of course you have to

use an approximation instead of the actual theory to do this calculation.

So the question is what approximation do you use, or more fundamentally

how do you tell whether an approximation is a good one? The major problem

I see is that the approximation has to handle counter-factual scenarios.

What is to prevent it from giving arbitrary predictions in those

scenarios, since you can't compare those predictions with the actual

theory?

See the new thread I started with subject "information content of

measures."

Received on Sat Jan 09 1999 - 02:13:14 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*