Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 01:40:09AM -0700, Greg Egan wrote: ... >>> But we do this all the time. Why is it we reject crackpot claims that >>> the world will end on such and such a date for instance? >> We reject those claims because they flow from theories that we reason >> should have led to observable consequences in the past (e.g. theories >> of interventionist deities). So what we have are prior probabilities >> that strongly disfavour those crackpot theories -- and given equal >> crackpot ratings, their predictions about the future are irrelevant. >> If crackpot A tells me that the world will end in 2012, and crackpot B >> tells me that the world will end in 20,012, then all else being equal >> I will (in 2008) give them both *equal* low credence. >> > > I was actually thinking more of theories like "the law of gravity will > be suspended on the 25th of July, 2012, but otherwise everything else > is the same". Obviously it makes the same retrodictions as our usual > scientific theories (doing so by definition). The reason it is > rejected is because of the arbitrary nature of the date makes it a > more complex theory (in the Occam's razor sense).
And it is not POVI. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
