> > The theorems are just hints about what might be happening.
> Isn't this true everywhere? Certainly it is just, in the words of Asimov,
> the relativity of wrongness. I mean even physics is "just a hint" despite
> being an incredibly strong one.
Well, sure, there is a relativity wrongness but the relativity to a context and in a given context, an agent (say you or I) has to judge whether the relative difference in the wrongness of two things means they're the same or they are different. In the context of the ideal, the laws of physics are limited. Relative astrology or other new age theories they're essentially true.
So, expanding my point, relative to many contexts, the distinction between a system you can reason about and one you can't tends to be a big distinction, even if you have mathematical analogies. A rocket can be send to the moon because we can reason about the laws of physics. A self-driving car, after also many years of trying and an interactive map etc, can often but not always get to the other side of town.
>...where I've given up trying to publish in Normalizing Flows because reviewers will ask why my works are not better than GANs...
Your efforts seem like the exception that proves the rule.
> Isn't this true everywhere? Certainly it is just, in the words of Asimov, > the relativity of wrongness. I mean even physics is "just a hint" despite > being an incredibly strong one.
Well, sure, there is a relativity wrongness but the relativity to a context and in a given context, an agent (say you or I) has to judge whether the relative difference in the wrongness of two things means they're the same or they are different. In the context of the ideal, the laws of physics are limited. Relative astrology or other new age theories they're essentially true.
So, expanding my point, relative to many contexts, the distinction between a system you can reason about and one you can't tends to be a big distinction, even if you have mathematical analogies. A rocket can be send to the moon because we can reason about the laws of physics. A self-driving car, after also many years of trying and an interactive map etc, can often but not always get to the other side of town.
>...where I've given up trying to publish in Normalizing Flows because reviewers will ask why my works are not better than GANs...
Your efforts seem like the exception that proves the rule.