I downvoted because it’s self-declared shit and I don’t want shit on LessWrong.
That (and the misspelling in the title) primed me not to read very carefully, but what I did read was enough of #2 and #3 that I can’t even tell if there are coherent ideas present, so your #1 option can’t be evaluated.
oh, wait—the “theorem of equal probability” really does seem like trash. you’d need a LOT of support for what probability even meansbefore it was useful,even if i turns out to be a theorem.
thank you for your precision, in the future i will assure you that i will try to be more clear in my writing(this is hard for me being both autistic and dyslexic) but even with this your downvote is understandable.
What I am interested in is not what is predictable but what is true and real
True and real things are the absolutely most predictable things there are. Predictions of the false or unreal will sometimes be wrong. They’re absolutely not the same thing, but predictions are the closest we have to truth, until we experience the truth.
Note that probability is in the predictor, not (necessarily) in the universe itself. Truth is what happens, with probability 1.
this theorem states that if given a random statement out of the set of all true or false statements then this statement is 50 percent likely to be true.
Here’s the problem. This is just wrong. There are infinite numbers of true and false statements, so it’s not defined what possible “random” distribution of statements even means. If you show your work on why you say “theorem”, I’ll be able to point out the flawed axiom or step you used.
if u can’t even tell if there are coherent ideas present, downvoting is socioepistemologically bad. imagine universalising this reaction across the website, and ask urself what happens to the ideas that are so novel that they don’t neatly fit into existing explanatory paradigms.
imo, u shud only downvote stuff u think is bad after u understand them. socially disincentivising illegible stuff seems quite bad in general.
if otoh u downvote bc it seems to neglect existing work in related fields, see the underappreciated value of original thinking below the frontier. we don’t want to disincentivise ppl from reinventing stuff. if they came up w schmobability theory on their own, i’d encourage them to expand on it, rather than risk collapsing the seed by making them learn abt Bayes.
I downvoted because it’s self-declared shit and I don’t want shit on LessWrong.
That (and the misspelling in the title) primed me not to read very carefully, but what I did read was enough of #2 and #3 that I can’t even tell if there are coherent ideas present, so your #1 option can’t be evaluated.
oh, wait—the “theorem of equal probability” really does seem like trash. you’d need a LOT of support for what probability even meansbefore it was useful,even if i turns out to be a theorem.
first of all thank you for your response.
thank you for your precision, in the future i will assure you that i will try to be more clear in my writing(this is hard for me being both autistic and dyslexic) but even with this your downvote is understandable.
do you have any critique of the idea?
I’ll try.
True and real things are the absolutely most predictable things there are. Predictions of the false or unreal will sometimes be wrong. They’re absolutely not the same thing, but predictions are the closest we have to truth, until we experience the truth.
Note that probability is in the predictor, not (necessarily) in the universe itself. Truth is what happens, with probability 1.
Here’s the problem. This is just wrong. There are infinite numbers of true and false statements, so it’s not defined what possible “random” distribution of statements even means. If you show your work on why you say “theorem”, I’ll be able to point out the flawed axiom or step you used.
if u can’t even tell if there are coherent ideas present, downvoting is socioepistemologically bad. imagine universalising this reaction across the website, and ask urself what happens to the ideas that are so novel that they don’t neatly fit into existing explanatory paradigms.
imo, u shud only downvote stuff u think is bad after u understand them. socially disincentivising illegible stuff seems quite bad in general.
if otoh u downvote bc it seems to neglect existing work in related fields, see the underappreciated value of original thinking below the frontier. we don’t want to disincentivise ppl from reinventing stuff. if they came up w schmobability theory on their own, i’d encourage them to expand on it, rather than risk collapsing the seed by making them learn abt Bayes.