From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 12:31:53 MDT
Robin Hanson wrote:
> Jef Allbright wrote:
>> To me the problem is simple in concept, but limited in practice. We
>> can never have absolute agreement between any two entities, due to
>> their different knowledge bases (experiences.) However, two rational
>> beings can approach agreement as precisely as desired by analyzing
>> and refining their differences. ... extrapolate any more limited
>> concept of rational behavior to a timeless setting.
>
> The argument is *not* that eventually rational agents must come to
> agree if they share enough experience and evidence. It is that they
> must agree *immediately*, merely due to knowing each other's opinion,
> without knowing their supporting evidence.
I would expect the two Bayesians to immediately accept that each of their
viewpoints are equally valid within each one's estimate of the range of
uncertainty, but it seems to me that for them to immediately and absolutely
agree on the issue would require certainty that they perfectly understand
each other's comprehension of the issue. For non-trivial issues I think
this perfect understanding is almost never the case.
Maybe I'm missing something. I'll try to find time to read your paper more
thoroughly.
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 12:43:52 MDT