Mm I feel like there’s a distinction, but I’m not sure how to articulate it… maybe… LWrats fear being wrong a bit more, while still going on to be boldly excitingly wrong as often as they can get away with, which tends to look a lot more neurotic.
Solomonoff induction isn’t that useful
Solomonoff induction is, as far as I’m aware, the most precise extant way of understanding what occam’s razor is, what “simplest theory” actually means. If we are not using it every day I think maybe we are not trying hard enough.
Ah, sorry, I was definitely unclear. I meant “using the concept of solomonoff induction (to reiterate; as a way of understanding what occam’s razor is) and its derivatives every day to clarify our principles in philosophy of science” rather than “using solomonoff induction the process itself as specified to compute exact probabilities for theories”, no one should try to do the latter, it will give you a headache
I get that sense about them and about LWrats, too.
Solomonoff induction isn’t that useful. Apart from the computability issues, , it’s “theories” aren’t what we normally refer to as theories.
Mm I feel like there’s a distinction, but I’m not sure how to articulate it… maybe… LWrats fear being wrong a bit more, while still going on to be boldly excitingly wrong as often as they can get away with, which tends to look a lot more neurotic.
Solomonoff induction is, as far as I’m aware, the most precise extant way of understanding what occam’s razor is, what “simplest theory” actually means. If we are not using it every day I think maybe we are not trying hard enough.
Not actually being useful is a fatal flaw. “Here is the perfect way of doing science. First you need an infinite brain..”.
Ah, sorry, I was definitely unclear. I meant “using the concept of solomonoff induction (to reiterate; as a way of understanding what occam’s razor is) and its derivatives every day to clarify our principles in philosophy of science” rather than “using solomonoff induction the process itself as specified to compute exact probabilities for theories”, no one should try to do the latter, it will give you a headache
But then DDs comment about theories not having objective probabilities was basically correct .