Abram, In the document, you wrote: "Pei Wang suggested that I should make no reference to objective probabilities from an external world. But, this does not fit with my goal-- I'm trying to give a probabilistic interpretation, after all. However, the system never manipulates the external probabilities. They are referenced only to indicate the semantics."
However, semantics (what the numbers measure under what assumptions) is exactly what differs NARS from the conventional applications of probability theory. To me, to "to interpret NARS probabilistically" means to take the make assumption as NARS, but re-do all the truth-value functions according to probability theory (as a pure mathematical theory applied to this situation). If by "probabilistic justification for NARS" you mean the current NARS truth-value functions can be justified even according to the common semantics of probability theory, by treating terms as sets, inheritance as partial subset, and frequency as the extent of partial inclusion, then I don't think it is possible. Let me spend some time to analyze the example Ben raised in a following email. Hopefully it will show you why NARS is not based on probability theory. Pei On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Attached is my attempt at a probabilistic justification for NARS. > > --Abram > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
