= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Request For Article: Many-Worlds Quantum Computing - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
Is every attempt at overcoming an intuitive misunderstanding on-topic? Should we have articles about the different sizes of infinity*, the fact that every pair of different real numbers has a rational number between the two, the fact that ZFC has countable models, and so on? Should we post tutorials about monads, calculus, and special relativity in order to eliminate confusion about those topics?
I don't think so. We aren't a general-purpose academic blog. We cover topics that aren't covered elsewhere; topics we don't cover are covered elsewhere. Whatever it is we do, this makes us better at it.
It would be nice if we had a good definition of rationality. Please don't cite Eliezer's "epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality"; by those definitions, knowing Mandarin and Spanish probably makes a person roughly as rational as knowing Bayes' law.
* In ZFC, which has an axiom stating that infinite sets exist.
"Epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality" are the standard terms.
Reason is deduction plus induction plus Occam.
Rationality is using reason to pursue goals.
What do you mean by "standard"? They're not so well-accepted by the community that I like them.
I mean that it's not really a case of "Eliezer's "epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality"" - since he didn't originate those terms.
The terms do seem to be a bit duff. The underlying concepts are OK - but IMO, the terminology leaves something to be desired.
When I said 'Eliezer's "epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality"', I was talking specifically about this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and these definitions are an oral tradition passed on through the generations by mouth before Eliezer finally wrote them down.
Er, there were plenty of pages on the internet about "epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality" long before that. Like I say, they are the standard terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_rationality
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Epistemic-Rationality-Richard-Foley/dp/0674882768