5 ms·

> Logical inference is just a special case of more general bayesian inference NO. This is a fucking sectarian crap. Logic of any kind is possible only because

by lngnmn 9y ago

> Logical inference is just a special case of more general bayesian inference NO. This is a fucking sectarian crap. Logic of any kind is possible only because the Universe has its laws and structure. It always comes first. Logic is a uninterrupted chain of steps of induction which must be validated by tracing back the whole chain to some validated, fundamental principle. It is a universal process. Inductive steps and premises are domain-specific. Logic could be applied to abstractions like numbers as an exception, because numbers represents valid aspects or properties of reality, not the other way around. Numbers are imaginary. Universe is real. It makes an observer possible, but does not require one, which means that an observer and all his inferences could be excluded completely from the "mechanics" of what is. Time, for example. And numbers, of course.

Houshalter 9y ago
You are speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense. Logical inference is just a simplification of proper Bayesian inference. There are no problems you can model with logic that can't be modeled by Bayesian logic. You just take a set of logical premises and set their probabilities to be 0 or 1. But this is only an approximation, and is fundamentally wrong in principle for any real world problem. You can never be 100% certain of anything, even mathematical proofs. After all, errors are found in published mathematical proofs all the time. And people regularly make mistakes doing even simple arithmetic. That's the thing, we live in an uncertain world and can never have true certainty about anything. Especially in most real world problems that we care about. All forms or reasoning and inference are part of the mind, not reality. Reality doesn't have to respect your axioms or logical inferences. At any time reality can bite back and say your logic was wrong. And you must change your map, not argue that the territory is incorrect. Bayesian inference is the process of drawing maps of a territory. And realizing that they are just maps. That we can make more and more accurate maps, but we can never have maps that are 100% perfect and certain. Reality doesn't grant us certainty, and that's ok.
- lngnmn 9y ago
  > There are no problems you can model with logic that can't be modeled by Bayesian logic. "Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal". Please explain to us, speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense, how Bayesian logic will prove the necessary "all men are mortal". Notice, that just saying "100% of a sample died" proves nothing. I am not asking about why the sun will rice in the east next morning. > You can never be 100% certain of anything, even mathematical proofs. This is some pseudo-intellectual hipster's bullshit, I am sorry to say. One can be 100% certain that DNA is the genetic material and bunch of other things, like for an external observer one and another one constitutes a structure - a pair and a pair introduces the notion of an ordering, etc. This is the good-enough basis of the DNA encoding, (and a Lisp). Notice, that the DNA encoding relies only on exact pattern matching on concrete physical structures - there are no numbers anywhere. The Mother Nature does not count. And this is logic, my friend. Now take your canonical map-territory metaphor a bit further. The structure of a brain which makes mind possible, and all the other body's organs, of course, including an eye, reflects the physical environment it has been evolved within. A brain is an "implicit map" of the territory, it reflects what is, like a print, or using modern terminology a trained neural network. The mind is bound by the brain and its sensory and evolutionary conditioning, which is bound by the environment (no matter what idealists, humanists and theologians would say). Everything the mind is capable of, including a valid reasoning (and excluding socially constructed bullshit and sectarian beliefs for a moment) is bound by the structure of the brain which is a representation of reality or so to speak a "map" of the territory. Consulting this map makes logic (and intuitions!) possible, the very same way a correctly trained model could give a reasonable predictions. It is just a form of pattern-matching. This kind of map is more "valid" than any Bayesian map. There is no objection about uncertainty part as long as it refers to a process of "unfolding" of reality.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    >"Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal". Please explain to us, speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense, how Bayesian logic will prove the necessary "all men are mortal". Exactly the same way regular logic does! You can have logical statements like "For all x, 'x is a man', implies 'x is mortal'". Bayesian logic doesn't take anything away from regular logic, it adds to it. It gives you the option of adding probabilities to statements. So you can do: Socrates is a man, 99.999% Men are mortal, 99% -> Socrates is mortal, 98.99901% >One can be 100% certain that DNA is the genetic material No, you can't. Scientists could discover something completely different tomorrow. I'll grant you that it's very unlikely, but not literally impossible. It's a common mistake to confuse the two, but they are not the same. >The Mother Nature does not count. Take two apples, add two more apples, you have four apples. Nature definitely counts. >The structure of a brain which makes mind possible, and all the other body's organs, of course, including an eye, reflects the physical environment it has been evolved within. A brain is an "implicit map" of the territory, it reflects what is, like a print, or using modern terminology a trained neural network. I don't disagree. And what does this have to do with anything? The brain is (approximately) bayesian and weighs different probabilities. The brain is never 100% certain of anything. It can never know reality completely, just become a better map.

by lngnmn 9y ago

Houshalter 9y ago

You are speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense. Logical inference is just a simplification of proper Bayesian inference. There are no problems you can model with logic that can't be modeled by Bayesian logic. You just take a set of logical premises and set their probabilities to be 0 or 1. But this is only an approximation, and is fundamentally wrong in principle for any real world problem. You can never be 100% certain of anything, even mathematical proofs. After all, errors are found in published mathematical proofs all the time. And people regularly make mistakes doing even simple arithmetic. That's the thing, we live in an uncertain world and can never have true certainty about anything. Especially in most real world problems that we care about. All forms or reasoning and inference are part of the mind, not reality. Reality doesn't have to respect your axioms or logical inferences. At any time reality can bite back and say your logic was wrong. And you must change your map, not argue that the territory is incorrect. Bayesian inference is the process of drawing maps of a territory. And realizing that they are just maps. That we can make more and more accurate maps, but we can never have maps that are 100% perfect and certain. Reality doesn't grant us certainty, and that's ok.

lngnmn 9y ago
> There are no problems you can model with logic that can't be modeled by Bayesian logic. "Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal". Please explain to us, speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense, how Bayesian logic will prove the necessary "all men are mortal". Notice, that just saying "100% of a sample died" proves nothing. I am not asking about why the sun will rice in the east next morning. > You can never be 100% certain of anything, even mathematical proofs. This is some pseudo-intellectual hipster's bullshit, I am sorry to say. One can be 100% certain that DNA is the genetic material and bunch of other things, like for an external observer one and another one constitutes a structure - a pair and a pair introduces the notion of an ordering, etc. This is the good-enough basis of the DNA encoding, (and a Lisp). Notice, that the DNA encoding relies only on exact pattern matching on concrete physical structures - there are no numbers anywhere. The Mother Nature does not count. And this is logic, my friend. Now take your canonical map-territory metaphor a bit further. The structure of a brain which makes mind possible, and all the other body's organs, of course, including an eye, reflects the physical environment it has been evolved within. A brain is an "implicit map" of the territory, it reflects what is, like a print, or using modern terminology a trained neural network. The mind is bound by the brain and its sensory and evolutionary conditioning, which is bound by the environment (no matter what idealists, humanists and theologians would say). Everything the mind is capable of, including a valid reasoning (and excluding socially constructed bullshit and sectarian beliefs for a moment) is bound by the structure of the brain which is a representation of reality or so to speak a "map" of the territory. Consulting this map makes logic (and intuitions!) possible, the very same way a correctly trained model could give a reasonable predictions. It is just a form of pattern-matching. This kind of map is more "valid" than any Bayesian map. There is no objection about uncertainty part as long as it refers to a process of "unfolding" of reality.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  >"Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal". Please explain to us, speaking a bunch of incoherent nonsense, how Bayesian logic will prove the necessary "all men are mortal". Exactly the same way regular logic does! You can have logical statements like "For all x, 'x is a man', implies 'x is mortal'". Bayesian logic doesn't take anything away from regular logic, it adds to it. It gives you the option of adding probabilities to statements. So you can do: Socrates is a man, 99.999% Men are mortal, 99% -> Socrates is mortal, 98.99901% >One can be 100% certain that DNA is the genetic material No, you can't. Scientists could discover something completely different tomorrow. I'll grant you that it's very unlikely, but not literally impossible. It's a common mistake to confuse the two, but they are not the same. >The Mother Nature does not count. Take two apples, add two more apples, you have four apples. Nature definitely counts. >The structure of a brain which makes mind possible, and all the other body's organs, of course, including an eye, reflects the physical environment it has been evolved within. A brain is an "implicit map" of the territory, it reflects what is, like a print, or using modern terminology a trained neural network. I don't disagree. And what does this have to do with anything? The brain is (approximately) bayesian and weighs different probabilities. The brain is never 100% certain of anything. It can never know reality completely, just become a better map.