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.
My guess is that this post was going over well-trodden ground, being mostly wrong yet taking kind of an authoratiative tone anyway, and doing so in a format that suggested it lacked any revision at all? I think the topics you’re grappling with are understandable things to be confused about, but on LessWrong, it’s generally treatead as better to express one’s uncertainty in a tone of uncertainty; and if the topic seems like one people should definitely have already poured some resources into exploring, e.g. probability theory, then asking if those explorations exist + where they might be seems like an obviously better approach to your confusion than a confident, free-form ramble. (Then, if those resources themselves leave you with confusion, you can express it and work on the problem from there. Alternatively, you could work through the whole problem yourself from first principles, and potentailly provide a novel and correct take on the topic; just, you did neither, which is probably where the downvotes came from.)
I guess, for existing resources which cover probabilitty theory, I’ve personally found explanations that spring out of attempts to build rational, probabalistic agents out of computers to be the most useful? Maybe read some of the articles linked on this page.
Sorry if this came off as condescending.
Edit: Actually, if talking to another sapient would be helpful here, I either recommend talking to chat-gpt about your probability confusions, or extend an offer to chat personally in private.
first of all thank your for the time to write your response as i said i am new here and it means a lot.
i am sorry if my post came off as authoritative but to me it seems you came off more as authoritative than i did. i generally think that it is better to write something novel and wrong than regurgitate already said information. if you have critiques of my ideas as you suggest by saying “(Then, if those resources themselves leave you with confusion, you can express it and work on the problem from there. Alternatively, you could work through the whole problem yourself from first principles, and potentially provide a novel and correct take on the topic; just, you did neither, which is probably where the downvotes came from.)” please express them, i cannot in a short way express how much i want my ideas to be critiqued. to me i seems that I did the latter of the two methodologies you presented—albeit with some changes---, at the very least i attempted to. again if you disagree then state why.
by the way i said “literally throwing shit out there” which seems clearly not authoritative.
This maybe would have made more sense as a Discord message in a rat server?
genuinely want to know why this got 21 downvotes. i am new to the culture of less wrong.
is it because?
1: the ideas are trash
2:the formatting is trash
3:it is incomprehensible
seriously please tell me
sinceraly
-not the sprayer
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.
My guess is that this post was going over well-trodden ground, being mostly wrong yet taking kind of an authoratiative tone anyway, and doing so in a format that suggested it lacked any revision at all? I think the topics you’re grappling with are understandable things to be confused about, but on LessWrong, it’s generally treatead as better to express one’s uncertainty in a tone of uncertainty; and if the topic seems like one people should definitely have already poured some resources into exploring, e.g. probability theory, then asking if those explorations exist + where they might be seems like an obviously better approach to your confusion than a confident, free-form ramble. (Then, if those resources themselves leave you with confusion, you can express it and work on the problem from there. Alternatively, you could work through the whole problem yourself from first principles, and potentailly provide a novel and correct take on the topic; just, you did neither, which is probably where the downvotes came from.)
I guess, for existing resources which cover probabilitty theory, I’ve personally found explanations that spring out of attempts to build rational, probabalistic agents out of computers to be the most useful? Maybe read some of the articles linked on this page.
Sorry if this came off as condescending.
Edit: Actually, if talking to another sapient would be helpful here, I either recommend talking to chat-gpt about your probability confusions, or extend an offer to chat personally in private.
first of all thank your for the time to write your response as i said i am new here and it means a lot.
i am sorry if my post came off as authoritative but to me it seems you came off more as authoritative than i did. i generally think that it is better to write something novel and wrong than regurgitate already said information. if you have critiques of my ideas as you suggest by saying “(Then, if those resources themselves leave you with confusion, you can express it and work on the problem from there. Alternatively, you could work through the whole problem yourself from first principles, and potentially provide a novel and correct take on the topic; just, you did neither, which is probably where the downvotes came from.)” please express them, i cannot in a short way express how much i want my ideas to be critiqued. to me i seems that I did the latter of the two methodologies you presented—albeit with some changes---, at the very least i attempted to. again if you disagree then state why.
by the way i said “literally throwing shit out there” which seems clearly not authoritative.