Ok, tabooing the word ontology here. All that's needed is an understanding of Bayesianism to answer the question of how you combine the chance of all other explanations.
But "all the other explanations combined" was talking about the probabilities. We're not combining the explanations, that wouldn't make any sense.
The only ontology that is required is Bayesianism, where explanations can have probabilities of being correct.
> But, that is indeed a clunkier statement, and probably defeats the point of you being able to casually mention it in the first place.)
Also like, if you're in something like guess culture, and someone tells you "I'm just telling you this with no expectation," they will still be trying to guess what you may want from that.
I recently interviewed someone who has a lot of experience predicting systems, and they had 4 steps similar to your two above.
I think 1 and 2 are what you do with expertise, and 3 and 4 are what you do without expertise.
I'm doing interviews for this now.
I've gotten great feedback from people I've interviewed, saying it gave then a better understanding of themselves.
If you're interested in being interviewed, sign up here.
Trying to describe a particular aspect of Moloch I'm calling hyper-inductivity:
The machine is hyper-inductive. Your descriptions of the machine are part of the machine. The machine wants you to escape, that is part of the machine. The machine knows that you know this. That is part of the machine.
Your trauma fuels the machine. Healing your trauma fuels the machine. Traumatizing your kids fuels the machine. Failing to traumatize your kids fuels the machine.
Defecting on the prisoner's dilemma fuels the machine. Telling others not to defect on the prisoner's dilemma fuels the machine.
Your intentional community is part of the machine. Your meditation practice is part of the machine. Your art installation is part of the machine. Your protest is part of the machine.
A select few will escape the machine. That is part of the machine. The machine will simplify, the machine will distort, the machine will politicize, the machine will consumerize.
Jesus is part of the machine. Buddha is part of the machine. Elijah is part of the machine. Zuess is part of the machine.
Your Kegan-5 ability to see outside the machine is part of the machine. Your mental models are part of the machine. Your bayesianism is part of the machine. Your shitposts are part of the machine.
The machine devours. The machine creates. Your attempts to protect your ideas from the machine is part of the machine.
Your attempts to fix the machine is part of the machine. Your attempts to see that the machine is an illusion is part of the machine. Your attempts to use the machine for your own purposes is part of the machine.
The machine's goal is to grow the machine. The machine does not have a goal. The machine is designed to be anti-fragile. The machine is not designed.
This post is part of the machine.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where on priors (with no other information), I expect the simplest explanation to be more likely than all other situations combined (including the simplest explanation with a tiny nuance).
Can you give an example of #1?
It seems you could apply this in reverse for non-acceptance as well. Thinking that its not ok for the boat to leak does not imply a belief that the boat is not leaking. (often this is the argument of people who think a doctrine of non-acceptance is implying not seeing clearly).
Hmm, is there an app for that?
I see people throwing around words with numbers attached like "I shorted the stock at $x" or "I bought at 5x leverage, and I only vaguely know what the words mean and how they're related to the numbers being thrown about.