Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Jaynes acknowledged that invariance under transformation groups must constrain prior selection, implicitly conceding that indifference alone underdetermines the correct partition.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Transformation groups themselves require prior selection—choosing which group to use reintroduces the underdetermination problem at a higher level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Jaynes never fully conceded indifference alone fails; he argued proper application requires understanding the physical problem structure first.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Invariance constraints may eliminate some priors but don't uniquely determine a single prior, leaving substantive underdetermination unresolved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pure indifference priors produce contradictions under reparameterization (e.g., uniform on θ vs uniform on θ²), proving logical inconsistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Transformation group invariance provides objective mathematical constraints that resolve partition ambiguity without arbitrary choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Jaynes's maximum entropy principle itself relies on invariance properties, so acknowledging this dependence is logically consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.