Didn't Hilbert say that physics is far too complicated for physicists? Saibal
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Juergen Schmidhuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: donderdag 28 maart 2002 18:09 Onderwerp: Re: Optimal Prediction > > 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 > > Hoyle's very clearly written paper. In either case, it would be > > foolish of me to continue the thread. > > > > Goodbye. <plonk> > > > > Bill > > > >"Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." > > > Predictive power is measurable by standard concepts of probability > theory > and complexity theory. 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 consequences, and observe that > the > AP _by itself_ cannot predict anything nontrivial. > > Fortunately Hoyle was more careful than some who cite him - he just > wrote: "the results...were obtained subject to certain assumptions > ...have not been demonstrated in a manner free from all doubt. > Nevertheless, the number of assumptions made was much less > than the number of results obtained." > > Thus he informally invoked Occam's razor: find short descriptions that > explain a lot. Occam's razor is not the AP. It is formally treated by > the theory of inductive inference. Although this theory is at the heart > of what physicists are doing, some of them are not yet fully aware of > it. > > Juergen (will be out of town for a while) >
