Bill Jefferys wrote:
At 9:19 AM +0100 3/27/02, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
You are claiming the AP necessarily implies a specific fact about
nuclear energy levels? I greatly doubt that - can you give a proof?
Yes, I can.
Bill Jefferys wrote:
It's pointless wasting my time on this. As both Russell and I pointed
out, this is a standard example that is cited by people who are
knowledgeable about the AP. Either you have a different definition of
predictive power than the rest of us do, or you don't understand
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:44:41AM -0500, Bill Jefferys wrote:
It's pointless wasting my time on this. As both Russell and I pointed
out, this is a standard example that is cited by people who are
knowledgeable about the AP. Either you have a different definition of
predictive power than
At 9:32 AM -0800 3/28/02, Wei Dai wrote:
Perhaps you're not familiar with the history of this mailing list, but
Juergen Schmidhuber is one of the first authors to explicitly state the
idea that all possible universes exist in a published scientific paper,
and that paper is cited in the public
At 6:09 PM +0100 3/28/02, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
Predictive power is measurable by standard concepts of probability theory
and complexity theory.
Agreed.
You may choose to ignore this, but don't include
all those who don't among the rest of us.
Write down all assumptions, derive the
I don't understand this point.
Bill Jefferys wrote:
Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
Saibal Mitra
Is there a reason why I sometimes get two copies of postings to this list?
Bill
Some posts are sent to you and cc'ed to the list, or vice versa, so you'll
receive two copies of those. If you're receiving two copies of other
posts, please forward both copies to me and I'll try to figure out the
problem from the email headers.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:03:46PM -0500, Bill
Bill Jefferys, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
This is well known in Bayesian circles as the Bayesian Ockham's
Razor. A simple discussion is found in the paper that Jim Berger and
I
I agree at this point that the AP by itself has no predictive power. My
view is that a predictor that currently works in a given universe - say the
AP plus other stuff - can not be considered to continue to work. Any
universe is subject to true noise either because its rules allow it [type
My son was taking a class in college on the philosophy of science.
One of the things they talked about was the validity of induction.
The basic idea of induction is to identify a pattern and extrapolate
it forward. Simplified, induction assumes that the way things have been
in the past is the
11 matches
Mail list logo
