My interpretation of “subjectively objective” is that probability is essentially a relation between a map and the territory.
The coin is not really “50% heads, 50% tails”. In any specific situation, it’s either head, or tails. Saying “50% heads, 50% tails” means that your map contains no information about the coin (besides the fact that it has a head and tails). Thus it is a fact about the coin and about your ignorance of the coin.
Since the map is a metaphor for the relationship between my mind and objective reality, I’m not sure what the “relationship between the map and objective reality” is actually supposed to reference.
My empirical beliefs are subjective because they are beliefs in my mind. They are supposed to be objective in that the beliefs are supposed to respond in certain kinds of ways to new sensory input (this is Aumann’s Agreement Theorem).
“Subjectively” is an adverb that attempts to modify “objective.” If all that it means is that empirical beliefs are subjective and objective at the same time, I think the grammar of the phrasing makes the point misleading.
Further, I’m unclear about the intended point of noticing that empirical beliefs are subjective AND objective. The map is not the territory, but Eliezer seems to think this post is saying more than that—but I don’t see what more there is to say.
My interpretation of “subjectively objective” is that probability is essentially a relation between a map and the territory.
The coin is not really “50% heads, 50% tails”. In any specific situation, it’s either head, or tails. Saying “50% heads, 50% tails” means that your map contains no information about the coin (besides the fact that it has a head and tails). Thus it is a fact about the coin and about your ignorance of the coin.
Since the map is a metaphor for the relationship between my mind and objective reality, I’m not sure what the “relationship between the map and objective reality” is actually supposed to reference.
My empirical beliefs are subjective because they are beliefs in my mind. They are supposed to be objective in that the beliefs are supposed to respond in certain kinds of ways to new sensory input (this is Aumann’s Agreement Theorem).
“Subjectively” is an adverb that attempts to modify “objective.” If all that it means is that empirical beliefs are subjective and objective at the same time, I think the grammar of the phrasing makes the point misleading.
Further, I’m unclear about the intended point of noticing that empirical beliefs are subjective AND objective. The map is not the territory, but Eliezer seems to think this post is saying more than that—but I don’t see what more there is to say.