maru dubshinki wrote:
On 7/19/06, David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
...
> Or we can hold "all" sets of axioms, assign a prior probability
> to each of them, then apply Bayesian analysis with real world
> examples and get a posteriori probability for each sets.
...
Alberto--
Interesting, but there might be some obstacles. There are
an infinite number of axiom sets based on the pronouncements
of gods. I imagine that we would have some difficulty
agreeing on what probability to assign them. : )
(The obvious solution is to assign all gods probability
zero, but that too might prove unpopular...)
---David
I think having them cancel out would be a better idea. We could
formalize each god as "really" being a infinite series of ethical
axioms (covering every possible action), each of which says to do or
do not a specific something; with an infinite number of gods, every
possible binary string of axioms will be represented, but each one
will cancel out (since if we have one god with YYYNNN...., we *know*
there is another with NNNYYY....) with another god's string. I suspect
we need not worry about one string "outvoting" another string, since
subsets of the infinite-gods set could themselves be infinite?
Maru--
Yes, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Alberto
was talking about probability. Since all probabilities
sum to one, that might well imply that each god got
probability zero.
You seem to be looking at this in terms of voting. Maybe
you can make it work, but infinite elections do have
problems...
By the way, some of the ethical axioms would contradict
each other, so some of the possible strings would be
contradictory. I presume you'll stick with tradition,
and assign them all gods too? : )
---David
As well to count the angels Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
