I agree. However, we could draw inferences about the nature of reality by examining the past, and apply that analysis (that model of reality) to making predictions. This is, of course, the nature of physics. — Relativist
Note that your examples concern our beliefs. There's a difference between the past constraining the future, and the past constraining our beliefs about the future. Bayesian calculus only allows the latter.
The other is Gillian Russell's recent work on logic, just mentioned. That is about the world rather than about our beliefs. — Banno
the idea that the past constrains the future relies on the idea that the '"laws of nature" may evolve over long time periods, but will not suddenly alter. — Janus
Came across this...I'm not familiar with Gillian Russell's work...will check it out. — Janus
This book’s proof of the Strong General Barrier Theorem is a landmark achievement in twenty-first century philosophy. Not since Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (1921) has such an important contribution been made to philosophical logic. — Barriers to Entailment by Gillian Russell
Yep. So Bayesian Calculus is about belief, but Russell's work is to do with models, and so truth. Looks pretty cool. It is a formalisation of the problem, and the "barrier to entailment" mentioned in the OP.It occurred to me when I wrote the above that I am addressing only our ideas (beliefs). — Janus
I could have written 'invariances' instead of "laws of nature". Do you think it is reasonable to say that if the past constrains the future it follows that nature's invariances do not suddenly or randomly alter? — Janus
I suspect we are emphasising different aspects of the same issues, and that we do not have an actual disagreement. What do you think? — Banno
Bayesian calculus deals with our beliefs, such that given some group of beliefs we can calculate their consistency, and put bets on which ones look good. But it doesn't guarantee truth. So what it provides is rational confidence, not metaphysical certainty. It's in line with Hume's scepticism. — Banno
You don't actually say anything here about why I'm wrong. — Banno
You can't be claiming that Bayesian calculus is not about belief. So, what? — Banno
:wink: The grand edifice is tinsel.It is about the openness of beliefs closed under ontic commitment. — apokrisis
Friston's Bayesian mechanics learns from experience by using prediction errors to update its internal models of the world, a core component of the Bayesian Brain Theory and Active Inference. Incoming sensory data is compared to the system's predictions, and any discrepancies drive changes to the probabilistic beliefs and generative models, allowing the system to adapt to its environment and improve its simulations of reality.
These prediction errors are crucial because they are used to update the internal models and beliefs. This process of updating probabilistic models based on new sensory evidence is the core of Bayesian inference. Through this ongoing process of prediction, comparison, and updating, the organism constructs and refines its "reality model," which enables adaptive behavior in a complex environment.
Friston's Bayesian brain model explains attentional processes by proposing that attention acts to estimate and manage uncertainty during hierarchical inference, thereby controlling the flow of sensory information. By dynamically adjusting the "precision" of prediction errors (how much weight is given to sensory input vs. prior beliefs), the brain can focus processing resources on the most informative parts of the sensory scene, a process which naturally accounts for phenomena like salience and selection
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.