But you can go and get info, and then judge, and say, “That prior that I held was wrong.”
You’re speaking as if all truth were relative. I don’t know if you mean this, but your comments in this thread imply that there is no such thing as truth.
You’ve recently had other discussions about values and ethics, and the argument you’re making here parallels your position in that argument. You may be trying to keep your believes about values, and about truths in general, in syntactic conformance. But rationally I hope you agree they’re different.
And, of course the priors must be updated the correct way.
Nonetheless, it is greatly preferable to have a prior that led to decisions that gave high utility, rather than one that led to decisions that gave low utility. Of course this can’t be measured “before hand”. But the whole point of updating is to get better priors, in this exact sense, for the next round of decisions and updates.
You can’t judge based on info you don’t have. Based on what you do have, you can do no better than current prior.
But you can go and get info, and then judge, and say, “That prior that I held was wrong.”
You’re speaking as if all truth were relative. I don’t know if you mean this, but your comments in this thread imply that there is no such thing as truth.
You’ve recently had other discussions about values and ethics, and the argument you’re making here parallels your position in that argument. You may be trying to keep your believes about values, and about truths in general, in syntactic conformance. But rationally I hope you agree they’re different.
It is only wrong not to update.
And, of course the priors must be updated the correct way.
Nonetheless, it is greatly preferable to have a prior that led to decisions that gave high utility, rather than one that led to decisions that gave low utility. Of course this can’t be measured “before hand”. But the whole point of updating is to get better priors, in this exact sense, for the next round of decisions and updates.
I am in violent agreement.