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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:47:44 -0800

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:27:43PM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:

*> Which one? Hm. Let me extend your question and ask: what's the
*

*> probability
*

*> that the Great Programmer is more than a mere programmer in the sense
*

*> that he is not bound by the limits of computability? For instance,
*

*> if someone were able to show that our universe somehow makes use of an
*

*> entire continuum of real numbers we'd be forced to accept some even more
*

*> dominant prior that is not even computable in the limit. We could not
*

*> even formally specify it.
*

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you give an example of how our

universe might make use of an entire continuum of real numbers? How might

someone show this if it were true?

*> So what's my prior on all priors? Since the attempt to answer such a
*

*> question might lead outside what's formally describable, I'll remain
*

*> silent for now.
*

But if there is a formally describable prior that dominates the speed

prior, and you agree that the more dominant prior doesn't have a prior

probability of zero, then isn't the speed prior redundant? Wouldn't you

get equal posterior probabilities (up to a constant multiple) by

dropping the speed prior from your prior on priors, no matter what it

assigns to priors that are not formally describable?

Received on Thu Nov 29 2001 - 11:50:27 PST

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:47:44 -0800

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:27:43PM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you give an example of how our

universe might make use of an entire continuum of real numbers? How might

someone show this if it were true?

But if there is a formally describable prior that dominates the speed

prior, and you agree that the more dominant prior doesn't have a prior

probability of zero, then isn't the speed prior redundant? Wouldn't you

get equal posterior probabilities (up to a constant multiple) by

dropping the speed prior from your prior on priors, no matter what it

assigns to priors that are not formally describable?

Received on Thu Nov 29 2001 - 11:50:27 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*