4 ms·

In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future That's just the thing: Bayesian probability is emphatically not about a

In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future That's just the thing: Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. But, don't make an appeal to the Dutch book argument in a unique one-off case where no one has anything at stake other than free publicity which they have chosen to pursue by counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff. ??? The Dutch book argument shows that rational people must have subjective probabilities which behave according to the axioms of probability. I don't see the relevance of your statement here at all, particularly the bits about "anything at stake" and "free publicity". And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"?

nanis 8y ago
> Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. I am saying something different, but this seems like a futile discussion. What does it mean to have P(Paul wrote it) equal to some number in (0,1)? Let's call that number q. Explain what q means in words. If the truth were ever going to be revealed, or if I could conceive of the experiment being repeated in the future, I could explain it as "I would be willing to pay up to $q to buy an asset that pays $1 if Paul wrote it and $0 otherwise." > And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"? I mean it is very hard for me to take a person seriously who is doing a whole bunch of interviews without even a working paper somewhere. It seems that if you use some arithmetic, people are inclined to accept what you did without questioning whether it makes sense to apply such models in this case. > The Dutch book argument shows that rational people ... You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I don’t object to your comments about the absence of a working paper. You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means. You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. Do you have any reason for this, or is it just a baseless accusation?
  - nanis 8y ago
    > You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? > You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. It is not an accusation. It is a statement. The Dutch book argument is basically a "no arbitrage" or "no free lunch" argument. Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is also a false statement. > Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. It's like saying the expected value of a dice roll doesn't exist because no roll ever equals 3.5, or the average of any number of trials is not necessarily 3.5. It's claiming a counterfactual is false because its antecedent is false. > PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being. You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs after making baseless accusations and misunderstanding the concept of probability.
      - nanis 8y ago
        > You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs ... LOL!
nanis 8y ago
> Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. As I mentioned elsethread, you misunderstand what I am saying. But, just to help you reason this out, answer me this: Where do you think the data to update your beliefs come from?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  From new information.

nanis 8y ago

> Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. I am saying something different, but this seems like a futile discussion. What does it mean to have P(Paul wrote it) equal to some number in (0,1)? Let's call that number q. Explain what q means in words. If the truth were ever going to be revealed, or if I could conceive of the experiment being repeated in the future, I could explain it as "I would be willing to pay up to $q to buy an asset that pays $1 if Paul wrote it and $0 otherwise." > And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"? I mean it is very hard for me to take a person seriously who is doing a whole bunch of interviews without even a working paper somewhere. It seems that if you use some arithmetic, people are inclined to accept what you did without questioning whether it makes sense to apply such models in this case. > The Dutch book argument shows that rational people ... You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means.

antidesitter 8y ago
You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I don’t object to your comments about the absence of a working paper. You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means. You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. Do you have any reason for this, or is it just a baseless accusation?
- nanis 8y ago
  > You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? > You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. It is not an accusation. It is a statement. The Dutch book argument is basically a "no arbitrage" or "no free lunch" argument. Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is also a false statement. > Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. It's like saying the expected value of a dice roll doesn't exist because no roll ever equals 3.5, or the average of any number of trials is not necessarily 3.5. It's claiming a counterfactual is false because its antecedent is false. > PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being. You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs after making baseless accusations and misunderstanding the concept of probability.
    - nanis 8y ago
      > You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs ... LOL!

nanis 8y ago

> Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. As I mentioned elsethread, you misunderstand what I am saying. But, just to help you reason this out, answer me this: Where do you think the data to update your beliefs come from?

antidesitter 8y ago
From new information.