**From:** Richard Loosemore (*rpwl@lightlink.com*)

**Date:** Thu Sep 15 2005 - 16:53:36 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Russell Wallace: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I agree entirely!

If this were a discussion on a mailing list about AGI or the

Singularity, rather than a mailing list devoted to the mathematics of

probability, I owuld say this was farcical.

Oh, whoops......

Richard Loosemore

Russell Wallace wrote:

*> On 9/15/05, *Eliezer S. Yudkowsky* <sentience@pobox.com
*

*> <mailto:sentience@pobox.com>> wrote:
*

*>
*

*> Actually, I also need to specify that at least one nonblack object is
*

*> known to exist in every possible world; along with the requirement that,
*

*> in at least one possible world containing nonblack ravens, the ratio of
*

*> these nonblack ravens to all other nonblack objects does not approach
*

*> zero; and the requirement that the proposition "All ravens are black"
*

*> not initially have prior probability equal to zero; in order for my
*

*> general conclusion to hold that randomly sampling a nonblack object and
*

*> finding it to be a nonraven ALWAYS increases the probability assigned to
*

*> the proposition "All ravens are black." (Assuming I haven't missed any
*

*> other necessary assumptions.)
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> You also need to assume the world has no structure.
*

*>
*

*> Suppose in real life you looked around at random, saw a white speck, and
*

*> on closer inspection found it to be a white crow. That's a nonblack
*

*> nonraven, but it would actually count as strong evidence _against_ the
*

*> proposition that all ravens are black: crows and ravens are closely
*

*> related, and if the one species can produce the occasional albino, the
*

*> other probably can too.
*

*>
*

*> - Russell
*

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Russell Wallace: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT
*