tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360142294752045303.post4709617456298361527..comments2010-04-08T16:45:40.235-07:00Comments on Anthropic Thoughts: Frequentist Magic vs. Bayesian MagicWei Daihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12427403662583076992noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360142294752045303.post-83312746248467391422010-04-08T16:45:40.230-07:002010-04-08T16:45:40.230-07:00Toby, this was a preview draft of a post for Less ...Toby, this was a preview draft of a post for Less Wrong. Sorry I didn't make that clear. (That's mostly what I'm using my personal blog for these days.) You might want to repost your comments to the <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/21c/frequentist_magic_vs_bayesian_magic/" rel="nofollow">Less Wrong post</a>.Wei Daihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12427403662583076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360142294752045303.post-64531961461675044462010-04-06T05:37:23.606-07:002010-04-06T05:37:23.606-07:00Also, the constants involved could be *terrible* a...Also, the constants involved could be *terrible* and there are no guarantees about this (not even probabilistic ones). It is nice to reach some ratio in the limit, but if your first Graham's number of guesses are bad, then that is very bad for (almost) all purposes.Toby Ordhttp://toby-ord.pip.verisignlabs.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360142294752045303.post-20519164410845429062010-04-06T05:33:59.385-07:002010-04-06T05:33:59.385-07:00We can't use the universal prior in practice u...We can't use the universal prior in practice unless physics contains harnessable non-recursive processes. However, this is exactly the situation in which it doesn't always work. Thus, one source of the 'magic' is through allowing us to have access to higher levels of computation than the phenomena we are predicting (and to be certain of this).Toby Ordhttp://toby-ord.pip.verisignlabs.com/noreply@blogger.com