On 19 Jun 2008, at 02:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
Günther Greindl wrote:
Brent,
scientific theory. Occams razor is a vague desiderata. You can
justify
almost anything by choosing your definition of complex, e.g.
theists
say, God did it. is the simplest possible theory.
no you
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:24:21PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
Brent,
scientific theory. Occams razor is a vague desiderata. You can justify
almost anything by choosing your definition of complex, e.g. theists
say, God did it. is the simplest possible theory.
no you can't:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/occams-razor.html
most relevant quote
Günther Greindl wrote:
Brent,
scientific theory. Occams razor is a vague desiderata. You can justify
almost anything by choosing your definition of complex, e.g. theists
say, God did it. is the simplest possible theory.
no you can't:
Hi Greg,
Thanks very much, everyone, for an interesting discussion, and thanks
for your patience towards someone who hasn't read your previous
debates on these issues.
You are welcome Greg.
I hope to find time to follow up all the links people gave. Russell,
that link to the
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
Sorry about that. It seems one needs the stuff after the domain - try
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Cheers
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 07:34:39PM -0700, Greg Egan wrote:
Thanks very much, everyone, for an interesting discussion, and thanks
for your patience
On Jun 15, 1:27 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What sparked our/my interest is that you seemed to have
interesting argument against the use of anthropic reasoning.
I'm certainly not arguing against *all* anthropic reasoning; every
argument needs to be examined on a case by case
Hi Greg,
On 15 Jun 2008, at 10:40, Greg Egan wrote:
My attributes (eg
height, weight and so on) are all drawn from distributions of such
attributes. Why not some hypothetical property like observer class
as set up in this toy problem?
Why is your height and weight drawn from a certain
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 01:40:09AM -0700, Greg Egan wrote:
My attributes (eg
height, weight and so on) are all drawn from distributions of such
attributes. Why not some hypothetical property like observer class
as set up in this toy problem?
Why is your height and weight drawn from a
Thanks very much, everyone, for an interesting discussion, and thanks
for your patience towards someone who hasn't read your previous
debates on these issues.
I hope to find time to follow up all the links people gave. Russell,
that link to the Everything Wiki currently gives a 403.
2008/6/14 Greg Egan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The context in which I was discussing this at the N-Category Café is
the claim by some cosmologists that we ought to favour A-type
cosmological theories in which class 2 observers like us, with a clear
Darwinian history, will not be outnumbered (over the
Hi Greg, and welcome to the list. Your ears must be burning - you have
often been talked about here, always in a good light!
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:07PM -0700, Greg Egan wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:25 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure his application of Bayes is
Hi Russell, thanks very much for your reply.
It's possible that I'm arguing at cross-purposes here, because I
gather that the whole reason for this list is to discuss models of the
universe that are very different from standard cosmology, but I hope
you won't mind if I pursue a defence of my
On Jun 13, 9:25 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure his application of Bayes is correct. Given the facts of
his hypothetical scenario, and writing e=10^{-4050}
p(1|A) = e
p(2|A) = 1-e
p(1|B) = 1-e
p(2|B) = e
This is my translation of:
Now suppose that
2008/6/13 Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
someone on another list alerted me to this post, there is a very
interesting discussion going on on that blog related to Observer Moments:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/06/urban_myths_in_contemporary_co.html
Is the ensemble of
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:28AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Is the ensemble of observer moments generated by the postulated BB's
different from the ensemble of all possible observer moments?
I don't see how it could be different. AFAICT BBs are nothing other
than the infamous
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:43:26PM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote:
Hi all,
someone on another list alerted me to this post, there is a very
interesting discussion going on on that blog related to Observer Moments:
18 matches
Mail list logo
