On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:03:41 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, that is a cleaner and simpler argument than the various more
concrete PI paradoxes... (wine/water, etc.)
Yes.
It seems to show convincingly that the PI cannot be consistently applied
across the board, but
LEADING TO THE ONLY THING REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:
What interests me is that the Principle of Indifference is taken for
granted by so many people as a logical truth when in reality it is
fraught with logical difficulties.
Gillies (2000) makes an analogy between the
gts wrote:
LEADING TO THE ONLY THING REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:
What interests me is that the Principle of Indifference is taken for
granted by so many people as a logical truth when in reality it is
fraught with logical difficulties.
I think it's been a pretty long time
-- Assume there will be persistent objects in the 3D space
This is not innate. Babies don't recognize that when an object is hidden from
view that it still exists.
I'm extremely familiar with the literature on object permanence; and the
truth seems to be that babies
**do** have
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:21:25 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's been a pretty long time since the PI was taken by any
serious thinkers as a logical truth, though...
Objective bayesianism stands or falls (vs subjective bayesianism) on this
question of whether the PI is
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:21:22 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see it, science is about building **collective** subjective
understandings among a group of rational individuals coping with a
shared environment
That is consistent with the views of de Finetti and other
So none of this is very new ;-)
No. :)
Also your idea of collective subjective understandings sounds similar to
something I read about an 'inter-subjective' interpretation of probability
theory, which purports to stand somewhere between objective bayesianism
and subjective bayesianism.
