Ok, here’s one. You criticize Bayesian updating for invoking infinitely many hypotheses, as a fundamental problem.
No, I didn’t say that. I invoked them, because they matter. You then claims Jaynes’ deals with the problem. Yet Yudkowsky concedes it is a problem
Here’s where you’ve really gone astray. You’re trying to figure out math by reading what people are saying about it. That doesn’t work. In order to understand math, you have to look at the math itself. I’m not sure what statement by Yudkowsky you’re referring to, but I’ll bet it was something subtly different.
Both theories make predictions about the validity of models using evidence
Popper never made a prediction like that.
Uh, wait a second. Did you really just say that Popper doesn’t provide a method for using evidence to decide whether models are valid? There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.
The only way evidence is used is that criticisms may refer to it.
Please reread what Jim wrote. You seem to be in agreement with his statement that evidence is used.
I’m not trying to figure out math, I’m trying to discuss the philosophical issues.
Unfortunately, they are interrelated. There’s a general pattern here: some people (such as Jaynes and Yudkowsky) are using math as part of their philosophy. In the process of that they are making natural language summaries and interpretations of those claims. You are taking those natural language statements as if that was all they had to say and then trying to apply your intuition of on ill-defined natural language statements rather than read those natural language statements in the context of the formalisms and math they care about. You can’t divorce the math from the philosophy.
Here’s where you’ve really gone astray. You’re trying to figure out math by reading what people are saying about it. That doesn’t work. In order to understand math, you have to look at the math itself. I’m not sure what statement by Yudkowsky you’re referring to, but I’ll bet it was something subtly different.
Uh, wait a second. Did you really just say that Popper doesn’t provide a method for using evidence to decide whether models are valid? There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.
I am pretty sure it was this one—where: Yudkowsky goes loopy.
The only way evidence is used is that criticisms may refer to it.
I’m not trying to figure out math, I’m trying to discuss the philosophical issues.
Please reread what Jim wrote. You seem to be in agreement with his statement that evidence is used.
Unfortunately, they are interrelated. There’s a general pattern here: some people (such as Jaynes and Yudkowsky) are using math as part of their philosophy. In the process of that they are making natural language summaries and interpretations of those claims. You are taking those natural language statements as if that was all they had to say and then trying to apply your intuition of on ill-defined natural language statements rather than read those natural language statements in the context of the formalisms and math they care about. You can’t divorce the math from the philosophy.