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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:53:17 -0800

I don't understand how you can believe that the probability of more

dominant priors is zero. That implies if I offered you a bet of $1

versus your entire net worth that large scale quantum computation will

in fact work, you'd take that bet. Would you really?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:

*> Wei Dai 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?
*

*>
*

*> I have no idea. In fact, I guess it is impossible.
*

*>
*

*> > 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?
*

*>
*

*> In the Bayesian framework we derive consequences of assumptions
*

*> represented as priors. The stronger the assumptions, the more specific
*

*> the
*

*> predictions. The Speed Prior assumption is stronger than the assumption
*

*> of a formally describable prior. It is not redundant because it yields
*

*> stronger
*

*> predictions such as: The computer computing our universe won't compute
*

*> much more of it; large scale quantum computation won't work; etc.
*

*>
*

*> In fact, I do believe the Speed Prior dominates the true prior from
*

*> which our universe is sampled (which is all I need to make good
*

*> computable predictions), and that the probability of even more
*

*> dominant priors is zero indeed. But as a Bayesian I sometimes ignore
*

*> my beliefs and also derive consequences of more dominant priors.
*

*> I do find them quite interesting, and others who do not share my
*

*> belief in the Speed Prior might do so too.
*

*>
*

*> Juergen Schmidhuber
*

*>
*

*> http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
*

*> http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html
*

*> http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/
*

Received on Tue Dec 11 2001 - 09:54:25 PST

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:53:17 -0800

I don't understand how you can believe that the probability of more

dominant priors is zero. That implies if I offered you a bet of $1

versus your entire net worth that large scale quantum computation will

in fact work, you'd take that bet. Would you really?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:

Received on Tue Dec 11 2001 - 09:54:25 PST

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