Your approaches seem incoherent to me. If the universe is defined by a
complete computable description then that description includes you and
whatever decision process your brain implements. To treat the universe as
computable and your choices as determined by some utility function and
decision
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:57:28AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Your approaches seem incoherent to me. If the universe is defined by a
complete computable description then that description includes you and
whatever decision process your brain implements. To treat the universe as
computable and
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:26:21PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Perhaps contradictory is too strong a word - I should have stuck with
incoherent. But it seems you contemplate having different wishes about
the future evolution of the world and you want to find some decision
theory that tells you
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:26:21PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Perhaps contradictory is too strong a word - I should have stuck with
incoherent. But it seems you contemplate having different wishes about
the future evolution of the world and you want to
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:39:59PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Exactly. So what does the assumption about the complete mathematical
description add?
It's so that your preferences are well defined.
As a positive theory, decision theory is going to be wrong sometimes (e.g.
not predict what
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Wei Dai wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:36:29PM -0700, H J Ruhl wrote:
I am interested because currently I find it impossible to support the
concept of a decision.
I was also having the problem of figuring out how to make sense of the
concept of a decision. My
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 02:08:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why are you in principle unable to compute your own choices? Do you refer
to unable to predict or unable to enumerate or both?
I mean there is no algorithm which your brain can implement, such that
given the mathematical
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 04:15:48PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see this. You seem to be making a proof by contradiction - but I
don't see that it works. There is no contradiction is assuming that there
is an algorithm that correctly predicts your decision and then you make
that
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 04:15:48PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see this. You seem to be making a proof by contradiction - but I
don't see that it works. There is no contradiction is assuming that there
is an algorithm that correctly predicts
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 04:15:32PM +0200, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
For example, suppose the process computing the universe is not optimally
efficient for some reason. As long as the resource postulate holds the
true prior cannot dominate the Speed Prior, and S-based predictions
will be
10 matches
Mail list logo
