BenP

• BenP 17 Aug 2010 15:57 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: What a re­duc­tion of “prob­a­bil­ity” prob­a­bly looks like

  Ah thanks. I should’ve been able to figure that out from your third thought experiment anyways.

• BenP 17 Aug 2010 15:46 UTC

  6 points

  on: What a re­duc­tion of “prob­a­bil­ity” prob­a­bly looks like

  I’m unfamiliar with the terminology “2-sampling”, “2-world”, “3-world”, etc. and a quick internet search has not turned up anything useful. Could you summarize what they mean or direct me to a place that explains them?

• BenP 17 Aug 2010 15:38 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: What a re­duc­tion of “prob­a­bil­ity” prob­a­bly looks like

  I’m confused here—if the coin’s randomness really is fundamental, and not a property of our ignorance, then it doesn’t make sense to say that a being is too computationally weak to predict it—no amount of computational strength would allow prediction

  He stated that the randomness is being provided by a pseudorandom number generator.

• BenP 4 Aug 2010 15:50 UTC

  8 points

  on: Con­flicts Between Men­tal Subagents: Ex­pand­ing Wei Dai’s Master-Slave Model

  This model is missing a plausible evolutionary explanation for how U and C may have evolved. That’s a pretty gaping hole because if we don’t constrain U and C to being plausible under evolution then they can be given whatever motives, responsibilities, etc. that are convenient to fit the model to existing data (see Psychohistorian’s epicycle comment).