Perhaps, then, I don’t fully agree with Aumann’s Agreement Theorem.
Whoa there. Aumann’s agreement theorem is a theorem. It is true, full stop. Whatever that term “SREoE” means (I keep going up and keep not seeing an explanation), either it doesn’t map onto the hypotheses of Aumann’s agreement theorem or you are attempting to disagree with a mathematical fact.
I believe it was “Sufficiently reasonable evaluator of evidence”—which I was using roughly equivalently to Bayesian empiricist. I’m beginning to doubt that is what ibidem means by it.
TheOtherDave defined it way back in the thread to try to taboo “rationalist,” since that word has such a multitude of denotations and connotations (including the LW intended meanings). Edit: terminology mostly defined here and here.
Sufficiently reliable, but otherwise yes. That said, we’ve since established that ibidem and I don’t have a shared understanding of “reliable” or “evidence,” either, so I’d have to call it a failed/incomplete attempt at tabooing.
For it to be a mathematical fact, it needs a mathematical proof. Go ahead...!
Like it or not, rationality is not mathematics—it is full of estimations, assumptions, objective decisions, and wishful thinking. Thus, a “theorem” in evidence evaluation is not a mathematical theorem, obtained using unambiguous formal logic.
If what you mean to say is that Aumann’s Agreement “Theorem” is a fundamental building block of your particular flavor of rational thinking, then what this means is simply that I don’t fully subscribe to your particular flavor of rational thinking. Nothing (mathematics nearly excepted) is “true, full stop.” Remember? 1 is not a probability. That one’s even more “true, full stop” than Aumann’s ideas about rational disagreement.
When did I claim that rationality was mathematics?
Right here:
you are attempting to disagree with a mathematical fact.
it needs a mathematical proof.
Here you go.
Maybe not “rationality” exactly but Aumann’s work, whatever it is you call what we’re doing here. Rational decision-making.
So yes, Aumann’s theorem can be proven using a certain system of formalization, taking a certain set of definitions and assumptions. What I’m saying is not that I disagree with the derivation I gave, but that I don’t fully agree with its premises.
If what you mean to say is that Aumann’s Agreement “Theorem” is a fundamental building block of your particular flavor of rational thinking
When did I say this?
You didn’t yet, I didn’t say you did. I’m guessing that that’s what you actually mean though, because very, very few things if any are “true, full stop.” Something like this theorem can be fully true according to Bayesian statistics or some other system of thought, full stop. If this is the case, then in means I don’t fully accept that system of thought. Is disagreement not allowed?
Maybe not “rationality” exactly but Aumann’s work, whatever it is you call what we’re doing here. Rational decision-making.
How does what I said there mean “rationality is mathematics”? All I’m saying is that Aumann’s agreement theorem is mathematics, and if you’re attempting to disagree with it, then you’re attempting to disagree with mathematics.
What I’m saying is not that I disagree with the derivation I gave, but that I don’t fully agree with its premises.
I agree that this is what you should’ve said, but that isn’t what you said. Disagreeing with an implication “if P, then Q” doesn’t mean disagreeing with P.
I’m guessing that that’s what you actually mean though
No, it’s not. I just mean that mathematical facts are mathematical facts and questioning their relevance to real life is not the same as questioning their truth.
Now this just depends on what we mean by “disagree.” Of course I can’t dispute a formal logical derivation. The math, of course, is sound.
Disagreeing with an implication “if P, then Q” doesn’t mean disagreeing with P.
All I disagree with X, which means either that I don’t agree that Q implies X, or I don’t accept P.
I’m not questioning mathematical truth. All I’m questioning is what TimS said.
But if we agree it was just a misunderstanding, can we move on? Or not. This also doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, especially if we’ve decided we fundamentally disagree. (Which in and of itself is not grounds for a downvote, may I remind you all.)
I didn’t downvote you because we disagree, I downvoted you because you conflated disagreeing with the applicability of a mathematical fact to a situation with disagreeing with a mathematical fact. Previously I downvoted you because you tried to argue against two positions I never claimed to hold.
Glad we’ve got that cleared up, then. I wasn’t only talking to you; there are a few people who have taken it upon themselves to make my views feel unwelcome here. Sorry if we’ve had some misunderstandings.
Whoa there. Aumann’s agreement theorem is a theorem. It is true, full stop. Whatever that term “SREoE” means (I keep going up and keep not seeing an explanation), either it doesn’t map onto the hypotheses of Aumann’s agreement theorem or you are attempting to disagree with a mathematical fact.
I believe it was “Sufficiently reasonable evaluator of evidence”—which I was using roughly equivalently to Bayesian empiricist. I’m beginning to doubt that is what ibidem means by it.
TheOtherDave defined it way back in the thread to try to taboo “rationalist,” since that word has such a multitude of denotations and connotations (including the LW intended meanings). Edit: terminology mostly defined here and here.
Sufficiently reliable, but otherwise yes.
That said, we’ve since established that ibidem and I don’t have a shared understanding of “reliable” or “evidence,” either, so I’d have to call it a failed/incomplete attempt at tabooing.
They’re using it to mean “sufficiently reliable evaluator of evidence”.
For it to be a mathematical fact, it needs a mathematical proof. Go ahead...!
Like it or not, rationality is not mathematics—it is full of estimations, assumptions, objective decisions, and wishful thinking. Thus, a “theorem” in evidence evaluation is not a mathematical theorem, obtained using unambiguous formal logic.
If what you mean to say is that Aumann’s Agreement “Theorem” is a fundamental building block of your particular flavor of rational thinking, then what this means is simply that I don’t fully subscribe to your particular flavor of rational thinking. Nothing (mathematics nearly excepted) is “true, full stop.” Remember? 1 is not a probability. That one’s even more “true, full stop” than Aumann’s ideas about rational disagreement.
Here you go.
When did I claim that rationality was mathematics?
When did I say this?
Right here:
Maybe not “rationality” exactly but Aumann’s work, whatever it is you call what we’re doing here. Rational decision-making.
So yes, Aumann’s theorem can be proven using a certain system of formalization, taking a certain set of definitions and assumptions. What I’m saying is not that I disagree with the derivation I gave, but that I don’t fully agree with its premises.
You didn’t yet, I didn’t say you did. I’m guessing that that’s what you actually mean though, because very, very few things if any are “true, full stop.” Something like this theorem can be fully true according to Bayesian statistics or some other system of thought, full stop. If this is the case, then in means I don’t fully accept that system of thought. Is disagreement not allowed?
How does what I said there mean “rationality is mathematics”? All I’m saying is that Aumann’s agreement theorem is mathematics, and if you’re attempting to disagree with it, then you’re attempting to disagree with mathematics.
I agree that this is what you should’ve said, but that isn’t what you said. Disagreeing with an implication “if P, then Q” doesn’t mean disagreeing with P.
No, it’s not. I just mean that mathematical facts are mathematical facts and questioning their relevance to real life is not the same as questioning their truth.
Now this just depends on what we mean by “disagree.” Of course I can’t dispute a formal logical derivation. The math, of course, is sound.
All I disagree with X, which means either that I don’t agree that Q implies X, or I don’t accept P.
I’m not questioning mathematical truth. All I’m questioning is what TimS said. But if we agree it was just a misunderstanding, can we move on? Or not. This also doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, especially if we’ve decided we fundamentally disagree. (Which in and of itself is not grounds for a downvote, may I remind you all.)
I didn’t downvote you because we disagree, I downvoted you because you conflated disagreeing with the applicability of a mathematical fact to a situation with disagreeing with a mathematical fact. Previously I downvoted you because you tried to argue against two positions I never claimed to hold.
Glad we’ve got that cleared up, then. I wasn’t only talking to you; there are a few people who have taken it upon themselves to make my views feel unwelcome here. Sorry if we’ve had some misunderstandings.