(a) Nobody can actually be Bayesian. Nothing made of quarks can be Bayesian.
(b) This is such a good existing word that I would be afraid of contaminating it if something goes wrong, and others might not take well to anyone trying to “steal” it.
Hmmm… What matters is the structure you can use to represent a hypothesis space for your purposes, not its size in some silly representation. If you can denote 3^^^^3 states as X and get away with it, it doesn’t matter that the number of states is 3^^^^3 and not (horror!) 3^^^3.
This could be the premise for a wicked good hard sci-fi whodunnit!
(The mystery would be revealed by deducing that the murderer would have to have been a perfect Bayesian, thus revealing the one suspect who is not made up of quarks to be guilty.)
(a) Nobody can actually be Bayesian. Nothing made of quarks can be Bayesian.
(b) This is such a good existing word that I would be afraid of contaminating it if something goes wrong, and others might not take well to anyone trying to “steal” it.
Do you mean that they can’t use Solomonoff’s prior? It’s easy for a computer to be Bayesian about a very simple universe, no?
A sufficiently small, discrete universe with known physics? Yes. But not in real life. All real-world hypothesis spaces are exponential or larger.
Hmmm… What matters is the structure you can use to represent a hypothesis space for your purposes, not its size in some silly representation. If you can denote 3^^^^3 states as X and get away with it, it doesn’t matter that the number of states is 3^^^^3 and not (horror!) 3^^^3.
“Nothing made of quarks can be Bayesian.”
This could be the premise for a wicked good hard sci-fi whodunnit!
(The mystery would be revealed by deducing that the murderer would have to have been a perfect Bayesian, thus revealing the one suspect who is not made up of quarks to be guilty.)
Explain?