Why are you surprised that incompatible priors (called “rival formalizations” by Peterson) produce incompatible decisions?
The “consensus” view (also the only one that seems to make sense) is likely that the more accurate map (in this case—literally) of the territory (e.g. three equiprobable cities instead of two equiprobable continents) produces better decisions.
Why are you surprised that incompatible priors (called “rival formalizations” by Peterson) produce incompatible decisions?
The “consensus” view (also the only one that seems to make sense) is likely that the more accurate map (in this case—literally) of the territory (e.g. three equiprobable cities instead of two equiprobable continents) produces better decisions.