Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: gwern 11 March 2017 01:39:33AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: I_D_Sparse 10 March 2017 07:57:56PM 0 points [-]

What if the disagreeing parties have radical epistemological differences? Double crux seems like a good strategy for resolving disagreements between parties that have an epistemological system in common (and access to the same relevant data), because getting to the core of the matter should expose that one or both of them is making a mistake. However, between two or more parties that use entirely different epistemological systems - e.g. rationalism and empiricism, or skepticism and "faith" - double crux should, if used correctly, eventually lead all disagreements back to epistemology, at which point... what, exactly? Use double-crux again? What if the parties don't have a meta-epistemological system in common, or indeed, any nth-order epistemological system in common? Double crux sounds really useful, and this is a great post, but a system for resolving epistemological disputes would be extremely helpful as well (especially for those of us who regularly converse with "faith"-ists about philosophy).

Comment author: denimalpaca 09 March 2017 10:51:13PM 0 points [-]

This looks like a good method to derive lower-level beliefs from higher-level beliefs. The main thing to consider when taking a complex statement of belief from another person, is that it is likely that there is more than one lower-level belief that goes into this higher-level belief.

In doxastic logic, a belief is really an operator on some information. At the most base level, we are believing, or operating on, sensory experience. More complex beliefs rest on the belief operation on knowledge or understanding; where I define knowledge as belief of some information: Belief(x) = Knowledge_x. These vertices of knowledge can connect along relational edges to form a graph, of which a subset of vertices and edges could be said to be an understanding.

So I think it's not only important to use this method as a reverse-operator of belief, but to also take an extra step and try to acknowledge the other points on the knowledge graph that represent someone's understanding. Then these knowledge vertices can also be reverse-operated on, and a more complete formulation of both parties' maps can be obtained.

Comment author: Viliam 09 March 2017 09:36:34AM 0 points [-]

First you have to get enough karma by posting comments that will be upvoted by others.

Comment author: PeterDonis 09 March 2017 05:54:27AM 1 point [-]

Your R is actually the Ricci tensor, not the Riemann tensor. The Riemann tensor has four indices, not two. The Ricci tensor is formed by contracting the Riemann tensor on its first and third indices.

Comment author: SnowSage4444 08 March 2017 10:27:56PM 1 point [-]

Shit, that's good. How do I upvote you?

Comment author: higurashimerlin 08 March 2017 04:49:26PM 2 points [-]

I realize the oldest comment on this thread is from 3 years ago, but I still have something to say. The reason people like the idea of magic I think is that it makes us feel like it a part of us in a way that a lightbulb doesn't. Even if you invented the light bulb, it doesn't feel like it is a part of you in the same way as if you could make light with magic or had a natural ability to emit light. Being able to generate explosions as a part of you feels better than making a bomb and pressing a switch.

It is the same reason why people prefer swords and other melee weapons over guns in fantasy and why cyborg are so well liked. These are all very physical and direct and we feel closer to those acts then the act of pressing a button. Actually making discoveries is more engaging then using the final product but it still doesn't feel like that power is a part of you so it doesn't fulfill the fantasy we want.

In response to comment by RedMan on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: gjm 08 March 2017 04:06:53PM 1 point [-]

I don't see how it can be very useful as a "strong social barrier to entry". It's not as if you have to be poly to be accepted as a rationalist, is it?

Comment author: gjm 08 March 2017 02:33:06PM 1 point [-]

The function x -> x+5 is not a linear function in the sense that's relevant here. (The word "linear" has multiple uses, related to one another but not identical.)

In response to Joint Configurations
Comment author: nyeven 08 March 2017 10:13:53AM 0 points [-]

If in place of Squared_Modulus, our magical tool was some linear function—any function where F(X + Y) = F(X) + F(Y)—then all the quantumness would instantly vanish and be replaced by a classical physics.

I am having trouble working out linearity of functions. Let's say we take a linear function F(x) = x + 5. Then we use the above linearity you mention F(5 + 6) = F(5) + F(6).

We get F(11) = F(5) + F(6).

If we work that out we get => 11 + 5 = 5+5 + 6+5.

The result is 16 =/= 21.

So, the linear function doesn't have linearity as its property?

I am confused.

Comment author: lukeprog 07 March 2017 10:24:42PM 5 points [-]

Lists of textbook award winners like this list might also be useful.

In response to comment by g_pepper on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: RedMan 07 March 2017 06:27:17PM 0 points [-]

Taking the analogy further to a community of tiger riding monkeys...The monkey that waves the steak on a stick in front of some other monkey's tiger probably has a future in marketing.

The monkeys who decide to pen their tigers may have a problem, the tigers are still present, may be unhappy about their confinement, and after a time, the monkeys may not watch them as closely as they should...

As a case in point, I give you the prevalence of polyamory in the rationalist community. Historically, polygyny has been a feature of insular communities that wanted to become more insular. Is polyamory serving its purpose as a strong social barrier to entry for the high table of the rationalist community, or is it really just pure rationality at work?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 March 2017 05:19:37PM *  1 point [-]

Note that the major relevant historical disagreement is not over any of these ideas, but over what the true territory is. Most medieval maps (pre-1300) were deliberately warped not to represent their territory as it looked in the physical world, but to show "spiritual truths". Jerusalem would be at the center, each city's size would be proportional to its importance in God's plan, and distances and directions would be warped to make a particular set of points draw the figure of a cross on the map. Similarly, maps of medieval cities would not show the city to scale, but would plant the richest part of the city in the center of the map, occupying a large fraction of the map, regardless of its actual physical location or size. Judging from the theories of perception and reality then in circulation, the people making (or at least the people buying) these maps probably thought they were not distorting, but correcting the distortions of the senses and presenting a view that would actually lead to more correct beliefs.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 March 2017 05:14:01PM 0 points [-]

The notion of the non-elementalistic is important--that was the basis of structuralism--but it reinforces the old view that these operationalizations of our observations were unfortunate but necessary concessions to the limitations of observation, rather than that, e.g., space-time really is the lattice the Universe is laid upon. I doubt there's a real difference between these views mathematically, but I think there is conceptually.

Comment author: simon 06 March 2017 03:34:22AM *  0 points [-]

178.2 should be 178.4 (180.2 - 1.8) and 176.2 should be 176.6 (178.4 - 1.8)

This doesn't change the result, though:

After 2 failed tries, even if you do have the good box, the most your net gain relative to standing pat can be is 98 additional coins.

But, the odds ratio of good box to bad box after 2 failed coins is 1:100 or less than 1% probability of good box.

So your expected gain from entering the third coin is upper bounded by (98 x 0.01) - (1 x 0.99) which is less than 0.

Comment author: jwoodward48 05 March 2017 09:27:31PM 0 points [-]

A person is nature plus nurture, and besides, I'm not even sure if DNA alone would produce the same baby. Epigenetics, womb variation, and whatnot all have an effect even before a child is born.

Comment author: jwoodward48 05 March 2017 06:53:56PM 0 points [-]

I know! Is the world not more beautiful when one can understand how it works?

Comment author: Jiro 05 March 2017 06:56:14AM 0 points [-]

It isn't. It's meant to point out that calling something a 'tax on stupidity" is itself meaninglessly deep-sounding. Intelligence is used for pretty much everything; calling something a tax on stupidity says nothing more about it than "it's part of the world".

In response to comment by Uni on Einstein's Arrogance
Comment author: jwoodward48 04 March 2017 03:50:28PM 0 points [-]

"The probability that the universe only has finite space is not exactly 1, is it?"

Nooooo, that's not it. The probability that the reachable space from a particular point within a certain time is finite is effectively one.

So it doesn't matter how large the universe is - the aliens a few trillion ly away cannot have killed Bob.

Comment author: Davidmanheim 03 March 2017 03:54:13PM 0 points [-]

I partly disagree. Simple metrics are used in place of complex goals, for good reason; https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/06/09/goodharts-law-and-why-measurement-is-hard/

Then the fact that the goal is too simply defined allows flexibility to be abused; https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/09/29/soft-bias-of-underspecified-goals/

View more: Prev | Next