What does it mean to optimize for the map to fit the territory, but not the other way around? (After all: we can improve fit between map and territory by changing either map or territory.) Maybe it's complicated, but primarily what it means is that the map is the part that's being selected in the optimization. When communicating, I'm not using my full agency to make my claims true; rather, I'm specifically selecting the claims to be true.
I don't know whether you are familiar with it, but most speech acts or writing acts are considered to have either a "wor...
It's interesting to note that we can still get Aumann's Agreement Theorem while abandoning the partition assumption (see Ignoring ignorance and agreeing to disagree, by Dov Samet). However, we still need Reflexivity and Transitivity for that result. Still, this gives some hope that we can do without the partition assumption without things getting too crazy.
I don't quite get this paragraph. Do you suggest that the failure of Aumanns disagreement theorem would be "crazy"? I know his result has become widely accepted in some circles (including, I think, LessW...
Disclaimer: I haven't read the Logical Induction paper, which may explain my lack of intuition.
Is there maybe a way to explain your theory of Judgement more directly, just in epistemic terms of belief and probability theory, without falling back to instrumental sounding trading analogies around buying and selling stuff for some price? Similar to the Radical Probabilism post perhaps? (Though that one also mentioned some instrumental arguments like money pumps / Dutch book arguments.)