3 ms·
Thank you, yes you understood what I was saying :) > I'm not really sure it contributes to the discussion, but it's true I guess maybe it doesn't, but the poi
by ants_everywhere 2y ago
Thank you, yes you understood what I was saying :)
> I'm not really sure it contributes to the discussion, but it's true
I guess maybe it doesn't, but the point I was trying to make is the distinction between modeling a problem and statements within the model. The original claim was "my theory is that probability is an ill-defined, unfalsifiable concept."
To me that's a bit like saying the sum of angles in a triangle is an ill-defined, unfalsifiable concept. It's actually well-defined, but it starts to seem poorly defined if we confuse that with the question of whether the universe is Euclidean. So I'm trying to separate the questions of "is this thing well-defined" from "is this empirically the correct model for my problem?"
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoSorry, I didn't mean to phrase my comment so harshly! I was just thinking that it's odd to make a claim that sounds so obvious that everyone should agree with it. But really it does make sense to state the obvious just in order to establish common ground, especially when everyone is so confused. (Unfortunately in this case your statement was so obviously true that it wrapped around; everyone apparently thought you must have meant something else, and misinterpreted it).
- ants_everywhere 2y agoOh I didn't take it harshly. Just wanted to clarify since you and I seemed on the same wavelength but that part didn't come across clearly :)