= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open Thread September, Part 3 - 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 (203)
7 and 8 are already a lost cause. :)
From a list of warning signs of a FAIL in an attempt to solve a famous problem:
7. The paper doesn’t build on (or in some cases even refer to) any previous work.
8. The paper wastes lots of space on standard material.
I would disagree that this paper doesn't build on or take notice of previous work. It takes note of EDT and CDT and quite properly puts the focus on the point of departure of this work - specifically, the handling of contrafactuals. I'm quite happy with that aspect of the paper. My complaint was (8) that it wasted far too much space doing it. And, perhaps as a result of wasting so much time and space in preparation, it never reached its proper conclusion.
Also, it is not completely clear the Aronson's list of warning signs really applies here. Eliezer is not solving a famous problem here. Most non-philosophers don't think that a problem even exists. So, he does have to provide an explanation of why TDT is needed. Just not so much explanation.
Nor do I, and I would in any case suggest that some of them are screened off. There's only so many times you can count 'non-conventional' as evidence.
I incidentally found some of the extra explanation handy purely as revision of various topics that it hadn't particularly occurred to me were relevant.
I do hope someone goes ahead and finishes it. Including things like writing out that bibliography at the end and writing up the maths.