On Aug 29, 7:12 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > marc.geddes wrote: > > > There are many logicians who think that Bayesian inference can serve > > as the entire foundation of rationality and is the most powerful form > > of reasoning possible (the rationalist ideal). > > Cox showed it is a rational ideal for updating one's beliefs based on > new evidence. Has anyone shown that analogical reasoning is optimum in > any sense? > At this point I'm going to give a 'prosecution summing up' of my arguments that Bayes is not foundational, and that analogical reasoning might be more powerful than Bayes, with Bayes just a special case; Here were my main points: (1) Bayes can’t handle mathematical reasoning, and especially, it can’t deal with Godel undecidables (2) Bayes has a problem of different priors and models (3) Formalizations of Occam’s razor are uncomputable and approximations don’t scale. (4) Most of the work of science is knowledge representation, not prediction, and knowledge representation is primary to prediction (5) The type of pure math that Bayesian inference resembles (functions/ relations) is lower down the math hierarchy than that of analogical inference (categories) For each point, there's some evidence that analogical *can* handle the problem: (1) Analogical reasoning can engage in mathematical reasoning and bypass Godel (see Hoftstadler, Godelian reasoning is analogical) (2) Analogical reasoning can produce priors, by biasing the mind in the right direction by generating categories which simplify (see Analogy as categorization) (3) Analogical reasoning does not depend on huge amounts of data thus it does not suffer from uncompatibility. (4) Analogical reasoning naturally deals with knowledge representation (analogies are categories) (5) The fact that analogical reasoning closely resembles category theory, the deepest form of math, suggests it’s the deepest form of inference Finally, since Bayes is tied to the reductionist world-view, I had to present an alternative non-reductionist physics model; I pointed out that the Bohm interpretation (which is non-reductionist) is precise and clear, was published in a scientific journal and has not been conclusively rebutted in over 50 years (although Brent did point out a copuple of valid criticisms). You could say, to sum up, that Bayes has been 'Bohm'ed! :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes

- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes

- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Brent Meeker
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Bayes Destroyed? marc.geddes