Lesswrong's opinion on infinite epistemic regress and Bayesianism

post by lunatic_at_large · 2023-09-17T02:03:35.465Z · LW · GW · 3 comments

This is a question post.

I'd like to write a follow-up post or two to my original post [LW · GW], but I don't have a good sense of what the Lesswrong community mostly accepts / mostly rejects / has thought a lot about / hasn't thought very much about. Which of these topics feel novel enough to merit a post / which existing posts are well regarded for the non-novel topics?




Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by drgunn · 2023-09-17T03:24:23.235Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You seem to be talking about "combinatorial explosion". It's a classic problem in AI, and I like John Vervaeke's approach to explaining how humans solve the problem for themselves. See: http://sites.utoronto.ca/jvcourses/jolc.pdf

No one has solved it for AI yet.

Replies from: lunatic_at_large
comment by lunatic_at_large · 2023-09-29T17:00:36.604Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for the response! I took a look at the paper you linked to; I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about combinatorial explosion. Combinatorial explosion seems to be an issue when solving problems that are mathematically well-defined but computationally intractable in practice; in my case it's not even clear that these objects are mathematically well-defined to begin with.

The paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335525907_The_infinite_epistemic_regress_problem_has_no_unique_solution initially looks related to what I'm thinking, but I haven't looked at it in depth yet.

Replies from: lunatic_at_large
comment by lunatic_at_large · 2023-09-29T18:10:28.242Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Okay that paper doesn't seem like what I was thinking of either but it references this paper which does seem to be on-topic: https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/justification-by-an-infinity-of-conditional-probabilities