I mean, I think it would be more accurate to say something like “the die roll, as it’s uncorrelated with features of the decision, doesn’t give me any new information about which action is best,” but the reason why I point to CoEE is because it is actually a valid introspective technique to imagine acting by coinflip or dieroll and then see if you’re hoping for a particular result, which rhymes with the “if you can predictably update in direction X, then you should already be there.”
Sure 23583450863409854 might not refer to any abstract concept fro you.
But I would hold that 23583450863409854 is a valid target for numerology and I would not be surprised if a numerologist did connect that number to some abstract concepts.
You need background education in general to understand a language. No statement is really free of auxillary hypotheses.
In the limit you don’t need any external prompt to start activating concepts you have gathered or booting up your imagination. But for some psychologies they don’t automatically try to match every theory they know against every percept they have but only apply concepts very selectively. Sometime you proposefully make that selectivity wider but it’s hard to say which level of selectivity is appropriate. On the other end there is akrasia where you don’t answer direct questions but only activate your brain when somebody punches you in the face. And in the other extreme being constantly paranoid about everything can burn a lot of energy and thinktime for little improvement.
If you throw a dice and read the results it’s reasonable to assume that it’s a trial independent of the rest of universes happenings. Thus conditioning on the dice result should not shift any probabilities concerning the rest of the world. If I throw an additional dice it doesn’t help determine what already thrown dice are. Your expectation doesn’t shift so no probability can shift.
One of the things I take from the post is that you don’t have any new information about what they rolled, but you DO now have an indication that they had some reason to roll a die. If you know what kind of decisions they make based on die rolls, you know they’re making such a decision.
For some things, that is a lot of information about the universe from the act of divination, not from the results of the act.
This is sort of the inverse of what the post is saying (that preparing for the act ensures that you consider the question with sufficient weight).
You can’t. But for example if they say what they rolled and you assume there is a correlation what they actually get and what they would say then you have a chance to narrow it down. If you know it’s not corrrelated to anything (ie is pure dice) you know it can’ t be evidence.
You can guess. You can roll the die yourself (and guess that it came up the same way). You can also examine the die, and then guess.
If I throw an additional dice it doesn’t help determine what already thrown dice are. Your expectation doesn’t shift so no probability can shift.
Also, this contains some assumptions that aren’t always correct. I can throw a die a bunch of times, and notice that it comes up “6” or “1″ an awful lot an conclude it’s weighted. (A shift in expectation.)
A guess would be equally good without dice throwing. Indeed if you have access to the dice that generated the result we want to know about you can infer distribution information. But if you have a different die and determine that it’s weighted it doesn’t tell whether the orignal die is weighted. If you knew the dice came from the same factory you could infer something. But you manufacturing a fresh dice is justified to assume to not be distributionally connected. If you have information that you know to correlate your manunfacturing process to be similar then that contains your information and the actual rolling of the die doesn’t tell you anything.
Because it’s output is a number, as opposed to information (in word form)? Or because there’s not reason the (P)RNG would be correlated to the solution to the problem you wish to solve/what you want information about?
Nitpick: conservation of expected evidence does not seem to me like why you can’t do divination with a random number generator.
I mean, I think it would be more accurate to say something like “the die roll, as it’s uncorrelated with features of the decision, doesn’t give me any new information about which action is best,” but the reason why I point to CoEE is because it is actually a valid introspective technique to imagine acting by coinflip or dieroll and then see if you’re hoping for a particular result, which rhymes with the “if you can predictably update in direction X, then you should already be there.”
23583450863409854 is not a perspective that helps me get a new view on a problem I’m considering.
1. This post addressed that—pair your RNG with an advice table.
2. That’s because you don’t give meaning to “numbers”. Try a random word/sentence/advice generator.
Sure 23583450863409854 might not refer to any abstract concept fro you.
But I would hold that 23583450863409854 is a valid target for numerology and I would not be surprised if a numerologist did connect that number to some abstract concepts.
You need the numerology to get your perspective. It’s similar to the source of the 64 bits of entropy for the I Ching.
You need background education in general to understand a language. No statement is really free of auxillary hypotheses.
In the limit you don’t need any external prompt to start activating concepts you have gathered or booting up your imagination. But for some psychologies they don’t automatically try to match every theory they know against every percept they have but only apply concepts very selectively. Sometime you proposefully make that selectivity wider but it’s hard to say which level of selectivity is appropriate. On the other end there is akrasia where you don’t answer direct questions but only activate your brain when somebody punches you in the face. And in the other extreme being constantly paranoid about everything can burn a lot of energy and thinktime for little improvement.
If you throw a dice and read the results it’s reasonable to assume that it’s a trial independent of the rest of universes happenings. Thus conditioning on the dice result should not shift any probabilities concerning the rest of the world. If I throw an additional dice it doesn’t help determine what already thrown dice are. Your expectation doesn’t shift so no probability can shift.
Someone rolls a die, and writes down the result. How do you guess what they rolled?
One of the things I take from the post is that you don’t have any new information about what they rolled, but you DO now have an indication that they had some reason to roll a die. If you know what kind of decisions they make based on die rolls, you know they’re making such a decision.
For some things, that is a lot of information about the universe from the act of divination, not from the results of the act.
This is sort of the inverse of what the post is saying (that preparing for the act ensures that you consider the question with sufficient weight).
You can’t. But for example if they say what they rolled and you assume there is a correlation what they actually get and what they would say then you have a chance to narrow it down. If you know it’s not corrrelated to anything (ie is pure dice) you know it can’ t be evidence.
You can guess. You can roll the die yourself (and guess that it came up the same way). You can also examine the die, and then guess.
Also, this contains some assumptions that aren’t always correct. I can throw a die a bunch of times, and notice that it comes up “6” or “1″ an awful lot an conclude it’s weighted. (A shift in expectation.)
A guess would be equally good without dice throwing. Indeed if you have access to the dice that generated the result we want to know about you can infer distribution information. But if you have a different die and determine that it’s weighted it doesn’t tell whether the orignal die is weighted. If you knew the dice came from the same factory you could infer something. But you manufacturing a fresh dice is justified to assume to not be distributionally connected. If you have information that you know to correlate your manunfacturing process to be similar then that contains your information and the actual rolling of the die doesn’t tell you anything.
Because it’s output is a number, as opposed to information (in word form)? Or because there’s not reason the (P)RNG would be correlated to the solution to the problem you wish to solve/what you want information about?