Rationality Quotes: November 2010

5 [deleted] 02 November 2010 08:41PM

A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (354)

Comment author: HonoreDB 01 December 2010 04:39:25PM *  5 points [-]

Farnsworth A: You people and your slight differences disgust me. I'm going home. Where's that blue box with our universe in it?

Farnsworth 1: Oh, you'd like to get back to your evil universe, wouldn't you? And destroy your box with our universe inside it.

Farnsworth A: Nonsense! I would never do such a thing unless you were already having been going to do that!

--Futurama

Comment author: Nornagest 01 December 2010 03:51:20AM 1 point [-]

Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.

-- The Jesus Seminar

(Developed in the context of biblical interpretation, of course. But despite my nontheism, I've found the principle behind it to be widely applicable.)

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 December 2010 12:51:25AM *  5 points [-]

The important thing is not to shout at this point, Vimes told himself. Do not ... what do they call it ... go spare? Treat this as a learning exercise. Find out why the world is not as you thought it was. Assemble the facts, digest the information, consider the implications. Then go spare. But with precision.

  • Terry Pratchett, Thud!

[I have had cause to apply this one recently. It particularly resonated to see it in the book just now.]

Comment author: gwern 01 December 2010 02:43:46AM 0 points [-]

For the benighted Yanks among us:

(The secondary Wiktionary definition doesn't seem to convey the depth of anger that Urban Dictionary and various citations I looked at did.)

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2010 12:54:17AM *  1 point [-]

Do not what do they call it go spare?

This seems to be missing, at minimum, some punctuation.

Edit: Moot.

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 December 2010 01:14:06AM 0 points [-]

Ellipses eaten by cut'n'paste. Fixed. Thank you :-)

Comment author: XiXiDu 29 November 2010 10:13:54AM 2 points [-]

Most of the founding Zetas members–the original 40–were trained elite soldiers who received instruction in radio communications, counter-insurgency and drug-interdiction. But the Army forgot to add a few ethics lessons into the education mix. And that was a big fucking mistake.

The Mexican Drug War in One Lesson: Know Your Zetas!

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2010 08:02:40PM 2 points [-]

"...for we judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."

--Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh ch. 1

Comment author: Document 08 July 2011 06:49:27PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: XiXiDu 21 November 2010 01:56:49PM *  3 points [-]

Scooping the Loop Snooper

an elementary proof of the undecidability of the halting problem

by Geoffrey Pullum

No program can say what another will do. Now, I won't just assert that, I'll prove it to you: I will prove that although you might work till you drop, you can't predict whether a program will stop.

Imagine we have a procedure called P that will snoop in the source code of programs to see there aren't infinite loops that round and around; and P prints the word "Fine!" if no looping is found.

You feed in your code, and the input it needs, and then P takes them both and it studies and reads and computes whether things will all end as they should (as opposed to going loopy the way that they could).

Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be, because if you wrote it and gave it to me, I could use it to set up a logical bind that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.

Here's the trick I would use—and it's simple to do. I'd define a procedure—we'll name the thing Q— that would take any program and call P (of course!) to tell if it looped, by reading the source;

And if so, Q would simply print "Loop!" and then stop; but if no, Q would go right back up to the top, and start off again, looping endlessly back, till the universe dies and is frozen and black.

And this program called Q wouldn't stay on the shelf; I would run it, and (fiendishly) feed it itself. What behavior results when I do this with Q? When it reads its own source code, just what will it do?

If P warns of loops, Q will print "Loop!" and quit; yet P is supposed to speak truly of it. So if Q's going to quit, then P should say, "Fine!"— which will make Q go back to its very first line!

No matter what P would have done, Q will scoop it: Q uses P's output to make P look stupid. If P gets things right then it lies in its tooth; and if it speaks falsely, it's telling the truth!

I've created a paradox, neat as can be— and simply by using your putative P. When you assumed P you stepped into a snare; Your assumptions have led you right into my lair.

So, how to escape from this logical mess? I don't have to tell you; I'm sure you can guess. By reductio, there cannot possibly be a procedure that acts like the mythical P.

You can never discover mechanical means for predicting the acts of computing machines. It's something that cannot be done. So we users must find our own bugs; our computers are losers!

I came across this yesterday. The blog might also be worth a look, see for example 'A Brief History of Grammar'.

Comment author: shokwave 18 November 2010 04:14:27PM *  3 points [-]

From Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series:

"Certainly, my situation is unique," Sazed said. "I would say that I arrived at it because of belief."

"Belief?" Vin asked.

"Yes," Sazed said. "Tell me, Mistress, what is it that you believe?"

Vin frowned. "What kind of question is that?"

"The most important kind, I think."

Vin thought, then shrugged. "I don't know what I believe."

"People often say that, but I find it is rarely true."

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 November 2010 05:53:12PM *  1 point [-]

For the young who want to by Marge Piercy

The poem is mostly about not being recognized as having a magical ability to do things until after you've succeeded. I'm just posting the link because it's more trouble than it's worth to make the line breaks show up properly.

Comment author: Snowyowl 17 November 2010 01:46:46PM *  7 points [-]

If it's a stupid idea and it works, then it isn't stupid.

-- French Ninja, Freefall

Puts me in mind of "Rationalists should win".

Comment author: Document 08 July 2011 06:47:27PM *  1 point [-]

Or alternatively, there's something intelligent that works much better.

-- benelliott (edited to attribute)

Comment author: gwern 16 November 2010 12:09:24AM *  2 points [-]

"Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas."

Erwin Rommel, The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Sourced

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2010 03:02:50AM 0 points [-]

This reminds me of the phrase "nobody learns faster than someone who is being shot at". Considering all the technological research done in war time, there seems to be a good point about motivation.

Comment author: phaedrus 16 November 2010 12:03:27AM 1 point [-]

"All of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

---George Eliot, "Middlemarch"

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 16 November 2010 12:25:09AM 0 points [-]

Somebody else read the comments section in Sapolsky's New York Times op ed today.

His column had a rough explanation of human oddities explained as evolutionary adaptations.

link

(If you sort the comments by largest approval rating there are several interesting ones.)

Comment author: oliverbeatson 11 November 2010 06:37:36PM *  3 points [-]

I chose and my world was shaken, so what? The choice may have been mistaken; the choosing was not.

Sunday in the Park with George, by Stephen Sondheim

Comment author: NihilCredo 11 November 2010 05:17:59AM *  8 points [-]

“But for that matter, how do you explain the fact that the statues of Easter Island are megaliths exactly like the Celtic ones? Or that a Polynesian god called Ya is clearly the Yod of the Jews, as is the ancient Hungarian Io-v’, the great and good god? Or that an ancient Mexican manuscript shows the Earth as a square surrounded by sea, and in its center is a pyramid that has on its base the inscription Aztlan, which is close to Atlas and Atlantis? Why are pyramids found on both sides of the Atlantic?”

“Because it’s easier to build pyramids than spheres. Because the wind produces dunes in the shape of pyramids and not in the shape of the Parthenon.”

“I hate the spirit of the Enlightenment.”

Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum

Comment author: MBlume 11 November 2010 02:12:02AM *  19 points [-]

When I was halfway through my Ph.D. I formulated a hypothesis: The proximate challenge that keeps you from graduating is that you have to write a thesis. But the ultimate challenge to getting your Ph.D. is this: You somehow have to learn to understand, deep down, that all your romantic notions about the Ph.D. are bunk, that you will be exactly the same person on the day after you get it that you were the day before, and that you need to stop waiting for the day when you feel like a god and just write something down and get on with life.

It may take you years to accept this, and it may drive you to drink, but after you get to that point you can graduate.

Only then will you be able to live with the fact that your thesis looks like crap to you. Your thesis will always look like crap to you. Either you will have figured out absolutely everything and your thesis will look incredibly boring to you, because you've moved on, or -- vastly more likely -- your thesis will look woefully incomplete because, geez, there is so much that you couldn't figure out, and you're just so stupid!

Or, most likely of all, you will think both of these things at the same time.

Similarly: Being the world's foremost expert on a particular scientific problem is a lot less exciting in real life than it seems in the movies. In fact, being on the frontier of science feels like being totally, hopelessly lost and confused. Why this came as a surprise to me I'll never know.

--mechanical_fish on Hacker News. Emphasis mine. source

Comment author: Document 04 December 2010 10:41:04PM 2 points [-]

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics. I assure you mine are far greater.

-- attr. Albert Einstein

Comment author: gwern 10 November 2010 11:33:36PM *  -2 points [-]

"Normal humans don't interest me. If anyone here is an alien, a time traveler, slider, or an esper, then come find me! That is all."

--The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, vol 1

Comment author: NihilCredo 10 November 2010 11:59:40PM 1 point [-]

Rationality?

Comment author: Nisan 10 November 2010 08:02:18PM 21 points [-]

Know the hair you have to get the hair you want.

-Pantene Pro-V hair care bottle

Comment author: DSimon 10 November 2010 07:44:21PM *  3 points [-]

I can't keep rationalizing away everything like this, or I'm gonna die!

-- Gordon Freeman, kind of

Comment author: cousin_it 14 November 2010 02:25:55PM *  3 points [-]

Another "rationality quote" from the same video:

...Why is it arking straight in the concrete? So is my education about electromagnetism wrong, or is the world wrong?

Comment author: ata 10 November 2010 05:04:36AM *  4 points [-]

A universe that needed someone to observe it in order to collapse it into existence would be a pretty sorry universe indeed.

— Randall Munroe, xkcd – Mutual

Comment author: Spurlock 10 November 2010 03:24:39PM 1 point [-]

That comic gets bonus points for nice use of Hofstadter-ian strange loop.

Comment author: realitygrill 09 November 2010 04:19:41PM 2 points [-]

"But building your life's explanations around science isn't a profession. It is, at its core, an emotional contract, an agreement to only derive comfort from rationality."

-Robert Sapolsky, in a essay reply to "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

Comment author: ata 09 November 2010 05:00:29AM *  6 points [-]

Rationality quotes: very many from @BadDalaiLama on Twitter.

(Edit: there's also this handy archive.)

Comment author: cupholder 10 November 2010 12:56:26PM 4 points [-]

This one felt quite LW-relevant:

If $1 million makes you happy, that doesn't mean $10 million will make you 10 times as happy.

It's good to be reminded now and then that dollars are not, in fact, utilons.

Comment author: shokwave 10 November 2010 02:26:11PM 1 point [-]

It's good to be reminded now and then that dollars are not, in fact, utilons.

The natural logarithm of dollars is a pretty good approximation of utilons, assuming you like candy-bars.

Comment author: Unnamed 11 November 2010 08:59:13PM 2 points [-]

Here's some evidence from Stevenson & Wolfers that happiness/life satisfaction is proportional to the log of income: blog post, pdf article.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 10 November 2010 11:40:05PM 2 points [-]

How does ln(dollars) approximate utilions? It's obvious that utilions are generally not fully linear in dollars, and they're certainly not equivalent, but how does the log of dollars, specifically, approximate utility?

Comment author: shokwave 11 November 2010 06:18:11AM 1 point [-]

If there is some mathematical reason why, I would love to know. I was going off the observation that the natural logarithm approximates the kind of diminishing returns that economists generally agree applies to the utility of wealth. This means that, very roughly, the logarithm of dollars is the 'revealed preference' utility.

It was actually more of a joke about that assumption, because it suggests that a 50 dollar meal is preferred four times as much to a 3 dollar candy bar - a bit odd, but perfectly natural if you like candy bars.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 11 November 2010 06:46:27PM 0 points [-]

Oooh, okay. Diminishing returns, certainly. Just not obvious that it would be "log" or near that.

It was actually more of a joke about that assumption, because it suggests that a 50 dollar meal is preferred four times as much to a 3 dollar candy bar - a bit odd, but perfectly natural if you like candy bars.

:)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 November 2010 06:26:09AM *  3 points [-]

Well, log does that. But so does square root also. Lots of functions have diminishing marginal returns.

Comment author: b1shop 11 November 2010 06:48:38AM 1 point [-]

I can think of two good reasons to model diminishing returns with the natural log.

Logs produce nice units in the regression coefficients. A log-lin function (that is -- log'd dependent, linear independent) says that a percent increase in X results in a <coefficient> unit increase in Y. Similar statements are true for lin-log and log-log, the latter of which produces elasticities.

y=ln(x) and y=sqrt(x) will both fit data in a similar manner, so it makes sense to go with the one that makes for easy interpretation.

Additionally, the natural log frequently shows up in financial economics, most prominently in continuous interest but also notably in returns, which seem to follow the log-normal distribution.

Comment author: Manfred 11 November 2010 06:55:14AM 2 points [-]

Of course, there's the problem with pathological behavior near 0.

Or the utility of money could quite reasonably be bounded.

Comment author: shokwave 11 November 2010 06:40:48AM 0 points [-]

Hmm. If we grab some study data on wealth's mathematical relationship with utility, we might be able to decide what function best approximates it. As it is, yeah, there is no reason to prefer log to square root to anything other function.

Comment author: NihilCredo 10 November 2010 08:32:51PM *  5 points [-]

With some constraints, of course.

"Here, have a penny."

"You bastard!"

Comment author: free_rip 09 November 2010 09:02:20PM 1 point [-]

Nice link. My favorite: In a democracy, the poor have the same power as the rich, but the rich can buy advertising, which the poor are suckers for.

Comment author: Zetetic 08 November 2010 09:37:48PM 3 points [-]

Research must contrive to do business at a profit, by which I mean it must produce more effective scientific inquiry than it expends. No doubt it already does so. But it would do well to become conscious of it's economic position and contrive ways of living upon it. -CS Peirce

Comment author: Mass_Driver 08 November 2010 07:13:41PM 4 points [-]

The Universe behaves according to its own laws.

Talmud, Avoda Zara 54b

Comment author: Mass_Driver 08 November 2010 07:13:12PM *  4 points [-]

And should you ask yourselves, "How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by the Lord?" -- if the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously: do not stand in dread of him.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 November 2010 11:22:42PM *  4 points [-]

(NIV Matthew 10:23) When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

(NIV Matthew 16:27-28) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [the end times] have happened.

Comment author: free_rip 08 November 2010 09:17:44AM 1 point [-]

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people >suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

~ Robert M. Pirsig

Now the actual quote's out of the way, here's my version: when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called society.

Comment author: MartinB 08 November 2010 10:47:32AM 1 point [-]

Or friendship, or marriage, or all kinds of other things.

Comment author: smdaniel2 08 November 2010 06:29:04AM 5 points [-]

half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at

solomon short (david gerrold's fictional character)

Comment author: MichaelGR 07 November 2010 04:28:24PM 4 points [-]

Overall, however, we've done better by avoiding dragons than by slaying them. -Warren E. Buffett

Comment author: Thomas 07 November 2010 01:07:30PM *  2 points [-]

Q: Don't you think sire, that the TV commercials should look more like real life?

A: On the contrary! I think life should be more like TV commercials.

  • Benny Hill
Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 06:48:52PM 6 points [-]

If you can't tell whose side someone is on, they are not on yours. -Warren E. Buffett

Comment author: xamdam 10 November 2010 01:46:16AM 4 points [-]

If after 1/2 hr of poker you can't tell who's the patsy, it's you. - Charles T. Munger

Comment author: Dre 06 November 2010 09:18:05PM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't this be a problem for tit for tat players going up against other tit for tat players (but not knowing the strategy of their opponent)?

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 12:41:10AM *  0 points [-]

Only if it's common knowledge that both players are human.

ETA: Since I got downvoted, maybe I wasn't being clear. I think that the Warren Buffett quote applies to human psychology more than to game theory in general. If outright deception were easy, it would probably become a good strategy to keep your allies in some doubt about your intentions, as a bargaining chip. But we humans don't seem to be good at pulling that off, and so ambivalence is a strong signal of opposition.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 01:43:45AM 1 point [-]

Now that you have clarified, I wish I could downvote a second time.

Tit-for-tat is a good strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma regardless of whether the players are human and regardless of whether the other player is "on your side". In fact, it is pretty much taken for granted that there are no sides in the PD. Dre was downvoted by me for a complete misunderstanding of how Tit-for-tat relates to "sides". You were downvoted for continuing the confusion.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 01:51:56AM 2 points [-]

Oh, you're right- my response would have made sense talking about players in a one-shot PD with communication beforehand, but it's a non sequitur to Dre's mistaken comment. Don't know how I missed that.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 05:12:21AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted, but even with communication beforehand, the rational move in a one-shot PD is to defect. Unless there is some way to make binding commitments, or unless there is some kind of weird acausal influence connecting the players. Regardless of whether the other player is human and rational, or silicon and dumb as a rock.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2010 10:51:52AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted, but even with communication beforehand, the rational move in a one-shot PD is to defect.

Taboo "rational".

Unless there is some way to make binding commitments, or unless there is some kind of weird acausal influence connecting the players.

Acausal control is not something additional, it's structure that already exists in a system if you know where to look for it. And typically, it's everywhere, to some extent.

Comment author: shokwave 14 November 2010 01:07:36PM *  1 point [-]

Taboo "rational".

Highest-scoring move, adjective applied to the course that maximises fulfillment of desires.

The best move in a one-shot PD is to defect against a cooperator.

With no communication or precommitment, and with the knowledge that it is a one-shot PD, the overwhelming outcome is both defect. Adding communication to the mix creates a non-zero chance you can convince your opponent to cooperate - which increases the utility of defecting.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2010 02:03:41PM 0 points [-]

Adding communication to the mix creates a non-zero chance you can convince your opponent to cooperate - which increases the utility of defecting.

There is a question of what will actually happen, but also more relevant questions of what will happen if you do X, for various values of X. If you convince the opponent to cooperate, it's one thing, not related to the case of convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate.

Comment author: shokwave 14 November 2010 02:48:57PM 0 points [-]

the case of convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate.

Determine what kinds of control influence your opponent, appear to also be influenced by the same, and then defect when they think you are forced into cooperating because they are forced into cooperating?

Is that a legitimate strategy, or am I misunderstanding what you mean by convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate?

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 05:23:54PM *  0 points [-]

Perplexed, have you come across the decision theory posts here yet? You'll find them pretty interesting, I think.

LW Wiki for the Prisoner's Dilemma

LW Wiki for timeless decision theory (start with the posts- Eliezer's PDF is very long and spends more time justifying than explaining).

Essentially, this may be beyond the level of humans to implement, but there are decision theories for an AI which do strictly better than the usual causal decision theory, without being exploitable. Two of these would cooperate with each other on the PD, given a chance to communicate beforehand.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 08:09:38PM 1 point [-]

Perplexed, have you come across the decision theory posts here yet? You'll find them pretty interesting, I think.

Yes, I have read them, and commented on them. Negatively, for the most part. If any of these ideas are ever published in the peer reviewed literature, I will be both surprised and eager to read more.

there are decision theories for an AI which do strictly better than the usual causal decision theory, without being exploitable. Two of these would cooperate with each other on the PD, given a chance to communicate beforehand.

I think that you may have been misled by marketing hype. Even the proponents of those theories admit that they do not do strictly better (or at least as good) on all problems. They do better on some problems, and worse on others. Furthermore, sharing source code only provides a guarantee that the observed source is current if that source code cannot be changed. In other words, an AI that uses this technique to achieve commitment has also forsaken (at least temporarily) the option of learning from experience.

I am intrigued by the analogy between these acausal decision theories and the analysis of Hamilton's rule in evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, I am completely mystified as to the motivation that the SIAI has for pursuing these topics. If the objective is to get two AIs to cooperate with each other there are a plethora of ways to do that already well known in the game theory canon. An exchange of hostages, for example, is one obvious way to achieve mutual enforceable commitment. Why is there this fascination with the bizarre here? Why so little reference to the existing literature?

Comment author: WrongBot 09 November 2010 09:24:37PM *  1 point [-]

So far as I understand the situation, the SIAI is working on decision theory because they want to be able to create an AI that can be guaranteed not to modify its own decision function.

There are circumstances where CDT agents will self-modify to use a different decision theory (e.g. Parfit's Hitchhiker). If this happens (they believe), it will present a risk of goal-distortion, which is unFriendly.

Put another way: the objective isn't to get two AIs to cooperate, the objective is to make it so that an AI won't need to alter its decision function in order to cooperate with another AI. (Or any other theoretical bargaining partner.)

Does that make any sense? As a disclaimer, I definitely do not understand the issues here as well as the SIAI folks working on them.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 09:48:24PM 0 points [-]

There are circumstances where CDT agents will self-modify to use a different decision theory (e.g. Parfit's Hitchhiker).

Does that make any sense?

Not to me. But a reference might repair that deficiency on my part.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 09:43:10PM 1 point [-]

I don't think that's quite right- a sufficiently smart Friendly CDT agent could self-modify into a TDT (or higher decision theory) agent without compromising Friendliness (albeit with the ugly hack of remaining CDT with respect to consequences that happened causally before the change).

As far as I understand SIAI, the idea is that decision theory is the basis of their proposed AI architecture, and they think it's more promising than other AGI approaches and better suited to Friendliness content.

Comment author: JGWeissman 09 November 2010 08:19:56PM 1 point [-]

They do better on some problems, and worse on others.

Do you have an example of a problem on which CDT or EDT does better than TDT?

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 08:25:35PM 2 points [-]

I have yet to see a description of TDT which allows me to calculate what TDT does on an arbitrary problem. But I do know that I have seen long lists from Eliezer of problems that TDT does not solve that he thinks it ought to be improved so as to solve.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 November 2010 05:19:20AM 0 points [-]

Not necessarily. Various decision theories can come into play here. It depends precisely on what you mean by the prisoner's paradox. If you are playing a true one shot where you have no information about the entity in question then that might be true. But if you are playing a true one shot where you each before making the decision have each player have access to the other player's source code then defecting may not be the best solution. Some of the decision theory posts have discussed this. (Note that knowing each others' source code is not nearly as strong an assumption as it might seem since one common idea in game theory is to look at what game theory occurs when people know when the other players know your strategy. (I'm oversimplifying some technical details here. I don't fully understand all the issues. I'm not a game theorist. Add any other relevant disclaimers.))

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 05:45:57AM -2 points [-]

No one on this thread has mentioned a "prisoner's paradox". We have been discussing the Prisoner's Dilemma, a well known and standard problem in game theory which involves two players who must decide without prior knowledge of the other player's decision.

A different problem in which neither player is actually making a decision, but instead is controlled by a deterministic algorithm, and in which both players, by looking at source, are able to know the other's decision in advance, is certainly an interesting puzzle to consider, but it has next to nothing in common with the Prisoner's Dilemma besides a payoff matrix.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 November 2010 05:54:06AM *  1 point [-]

No one on this thread has mentioned a "prisoner's paradox". We have been discussing the Prisoner's Dilemma, a well known and standard problem in game theory which involves two players who must decide without prior knowledge of the other player's decision.

Prisoner's paradox is another term for the prisoner's dilemma. See for example this Wikipedia redirect. You may want to reread what I wrote in that light. (Although there's some weird bit of illusion of transparency going on here in that part of me has a lot of trouble understanding how someone wouldn't be able to tell from context that they were the same thing.)

A different problem in which neither player is actually making a decision, but instead is controlled by a deterministic algorithm, and in which both players, by looking at source, are able to know the other's decision in advance, is certainly an interesting puzzle to consider, but it has next to nothing in common with the Prisoner's Dilemma besides a payoff matrix.

No. The problem of what to do is actually closely related when one has systems which are able to understand each others source code. It is in fact related to the problem of iterating the problem.

In general, given no information, the problem still has relevant decision theoretic considerations.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 02:53:39PM 2 points [-]

The problem of what to do is actually closely related when one has systems which are able to understand each others source code. It is in fact related to the problem of iterating the problem.

I'm curious why you assert this. Game theorists have a half dozen or so standard simple one-shot two person games which they use to illustrate principles. PD is one, matching pennies is another, Battle of the Sexes, Chicken, ... the list is not that long.

They also have a handful of standard ways of taking a simple one-shot game and turning it into something else - iteration is one possibility, but you can also add signaling, bargaining with commitment, bargaining without commitment but with a correlated shared signal, evolution of strategies to an ESS, etc. I suppose that sharing source code can be considered yet another of these basic game transformations.

Now we have the assertion that for one (PD is the only one?) of these games, one (iteration is the only one?) of these transformations is closely related to this new code-sharing transformation. Why is this assertion made? Is there some kind of mathematical structure to this claimed relationship? Some kind of proof? Surely there is more evidence for this claimed relationship than just pointing out that both transformations yield the same prescription - "cooperate" - when there are only two possible prescriptions to choose among.

Is the code-sharing version of Chicken also closely related to the iterated version? How about Battle of the Sexes?

Comment author: Document 06 November 2010 07:22:19PM 0 points [-]

Sounds like one for the quotes page for "Default to Good" at TV Tropes. (Link omitted due to time hazard.)

Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 05:09:59PM 14 points [-]

A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician.
--Samuel Johnson

Comment author: XiXiDu 06 November 2010 03:44:52PM 7 points [-]

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.

Richard Feynman

Comment author: Tesseract 05 November 2010 08:34:18PM 23 points [-]

Kołakowski's Law, or The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia:

For any given doctrine that one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which to support it.

Leszek Kołakowski

Comment author: Drawbacks 23 November 2010 08:09:40PM 2 points [-]

If you set out to beat a dog, you're sure to find a stick. -- Old Yiddish Proverb

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 08:39:55PM 0 points [-]

I like it.

Comment author: stochastic 05 November 2010 10:26:49PM 0 points [-]

+1

Comment author: [deleted] 05 November 2010 09:28:16AM *  3 points [-]

del

Comment author: jimmy 05 November 2010 10:19:18PM 5 points [-]

That doesn't sound right.

To me, it seems like:

(Philosophy -> Science) and (Art -> Engineering).

Comment author: yoj1mbo 04 November 2010 09:36:31PM 0 points [-]

"However insistently the blind may deny the existence of the sun, they cannot annihilate it. " - D. T. Suzuki

Comment author: MartinB 08 November 2010 10:46:07AM 0 points [-]

Humans are blind to all kinds of things. Radiation for one. But it still can be detected and controlled. A civilization of blind people would eventually build detecting equipment and learn to control the real world.

Comment author: Document 10 July 2011 11:25:16PM -1 points [-]

As the saying goes: "In a world of blind people, c would be the speed of heat.". But I don't think anyone believes that anyone actually denies the sun's existence.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 09:44:34PM *  4 points [-]

"However insistently the blind may deny the existence of the sun, they cannot annihilate it. " - D. T. Suzuki

Want to bet?

(At stakes of a few thousand galaxies worth of energy and negentropy. It's not going to be cheap to win this bet! I'm not too comfortable with the whole making myself blind thing either but I guess I can rectify that once I finish deploying the antimatter disruptor beam.)

Comment author: yoj1mbo 07 November 2010 01:34:40AM *  1 point [-]

You are mistaking the map for the territory. It doesn't matter if its a quark-pair or a hyper colossal cosmic structure gravitationally influencing everything in the universe; if a condition is present, then it has effect.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 November 2010 07:48:22AM 0 points [-]

That settles it. I'm going to recruit Chewbacca as my Mook Luitenant. There can be no other choice.

Comment author: free_rip 08 November 2010 09:22:31AM 1 point [-]

The replies are better quotes than the original.

Comment author: ciphergoth 05 November 2010 12:13:21PM *  6 points [-]

"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun."

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 09:51:13PM 3 points [-]

I just noticed that I implicitly assumed that it would have to be me that blinded himself. What sort of nefarious sun destroying intergalactic mastermind would I be if did foist that role upon a henchman?

Comment author: Snowyowl 05 November 2010 11:51:44AM 1 point [-]

You're going to have trouble destroying the Sun if you don't believe it exists.

Comment author: Larks 05 November 2010 02:53:05PM 6 points [-]

He only has to deny that it exists.

Alternatively, he could lock himself onto a sun-destroying path, and then forcibly do an unBayesian update away from the existence of the sun.

Alternately, he could interpret the sentence literally, note that 'not at all' is a level of insistence, deny the existence of the sun not at all, and then destroy it.

Comment author: MichaelGR 04 November 2010 09:10:40PM 13 points [-]

It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful, they are found because it was possible to find them. -J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Comment author: bentarm 04 November 2010 10:56:05PM 2 points [-]

There are two quite different interpretations of this quote: it either says something about scientists, or something about scientific truths, and I'm not sure which is the intention.

The two messages I see are:

  1. Scientists just enjoy seeking truths, you don't need to give them the incentive of practical applications in order for them to do science, so any truths that can be discovered will be, regardless of their usefulness.

  2. There are an awful lot of true things. The ones that we know might not be the most useful, but they are the ones that happen to lie in the (extremely small?) subset of true things that humans are capable of understanding.

To an extent, I guess both of these are true... which one was Oppenheimer aiming at?

Comment author: Perplexed 05 November 2010 10:54:44PM 2 points [-]

[one interpretation of Oppenheimer:] There are an awful lot of true things. The ones that we know might not be the most useful, but they are the ones that happen to lie in the (extremely small?) subset of true things that humans are capable of understanding.

Quibble: Two things you might have missed:

  • Oppenheimer was talking about "deep things in science", not about "truths."
  • He said "possible to find them", not "possible to understand them".
Comment author: stochastic 05 November 2010 10:35:07PM 0 points [-]

<quote>There are an awful lot of true things. </quote>

I think that many of the things that are commonly regarded as being "true" are socially constructed fictions, biases and fallacies. Moreover science can never attain absolute truth it can only strive for it.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 12:38:46AM 4 points [-]

Hi stochastic, and welcome to Less Wrong!

This is actually a really important topic. I agree that there are a lot of cultural and normative claims that don't deserve to be called "true" or "false", despite their common usage as such. I'd be cautious of using the phrase "absolute truth", since it conjures up false expectations compared to the actual process of increasing confidence in models of the world.

Really relevant: The Simple Truth

P.S. Introduce yourself on the welcome page when you have a moment!

Comment author: Emile 06 November 2010 11:38:51AM *  3 points [-]

The quote syntax is

> quote goes here

Which becomes

quote goes here

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 09:52:53PM 0 points [-]

It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful, they are found because it was possible to find them. -J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Profound, necessary and optimistic. :)

Comment author: MichaelGR 04 November 2010 09:09:50PM 7 points [-]

It is still an unending source of surprise for me how a few scribbles on a blackboard or on a piece of paper can change the course of human affairs. -Stanislaw Ulam

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 09:55:52PM 1 point [-]

Can they really? I have my doubts. Most of those scribbles on a blackboard were either an inevitable result of outside forces or would have been made on a different blackboard had they they not been made there. (Although to be fair the butterfly and mere chance will play their part at least some of the time.)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 November 2010 11:28:01PM 1 point [-]

He could have also been thinking about the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and various other documents. (I'd list the Magna Carta, but it didn't really have the effect it's credited with. It was a few lines in a larger document that was more concerned with the hunting privileges of nobles than with the rights of man, and that was nullified before the year was out.)

Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 08:12:03PM 0 points [-]

I think he had things like the development of physics in the 20th century that led to the creation of the A and H bombs. I got the quote from Richard Rhodes history of the making of the atomic bomb.

It doesn't matter exactly which blackboard or wrote wrote what, in the end, a bunch of people making calculations and experiments changed the course of human affairs pretty significantly.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 10:23:06PM 4 points [-]

Scribbles on maps, particularly in 1815 and 1919, had some largish effects.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2010 09:00:55PM 1 point [-]

The partitions of Korea and Vietnam are some more recent examples; nor have we seen the last of the largish effects of the former.

Comment author: DanArmak 04 November 2010 10:53:54PM *  23 points [-]

In 1923, England and France divided between them the previously Turkish territories of what are modern Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. They drew a pencil line on a map to mark the treaty border.

It turned out that the thickness of the pencil line itself was several hundred meters on the ground. In 1964, Israel fought a battle with Syria over that land.

People were killed because someone neglected to sharpen their pencil. That's "scribbles on a piece of paper" for you.

Ref: a book found by Google. I originally learned about this from an Israeli plaque at the Dan River preserve near the border.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 11:02:26PM 5 points [-]

People were killed because someone neglected to sharpen their pencil. That's "scribbles on a piece of paper" for you.

I suppose it would be in bad taste to find that rather amusing. Or at least to admit it.

Comment author: Drawbacks 23 November 2010 10:23:09PM 1 point [-]

"The 350-mile detour in the Trans-Siberian Railway was caused by the Tsar, who drew the proposed route using a ruler with a notch in it." -- Not 1982

Comment author: Pfft 19 December 2010 12:48:27AM 0 points [-]

What's the source for this? Googling "Not 1982" is not helpful... I did find the following amusing quote though:

His engineers were once consulting [Tsar Nicholas] as to the expediency of taking the line from St Petersburg to Moscow by a slight detour to avoid some very troublesome obstacles. The Tsar took up a ruler and with his pencil drew a straight line from the old metropolis. Handing back the chart he peremptorily said "There, gentlemen, that is to be the route for the line!"

"The Trans-Siberian Railway". In The Living Age, seventh series volume five, 1899

Comment author: gwern 19 December 2010 12:59:19AM 0 points [-]

I wonder if Nicholas was acting in the same spirit as King Canute and likewise has been subsequently misinterpreted. (I've seen the Canute story mentioned as an example of being power-mad.) Nicholas's intention could have been something like 'Gentlemen, you were chosen for your competence in engineering and expertise in dealing with such details; I have made my general wish known to you; kindly implement it and do not bother me with what is your job.'

Comment author: Manfred 19 December 2010 12:59:17AM 1 point [-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_the_Nine_O%27Clock_News#Books_and_miscellaneous

My google-fu is strong-ish. Still, not a particularly reliable source.

Comment author: James_K 05 November 2010 03:39:03AM 5 points [-]

In circumstances like that I find I have to laugh, if only to keep from weeping.

Comment author: Zetetic 04 November 2010 09:00:38PM 7 points [-]

Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false; he has, nevertheless, passionately loved it, has made it his companion by day and by night, and has given to it his strength and his life, leaving all other occupations for its sake, and in short has lived with it and for it, until it has become, as it were, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and then he has waked up some bright morning to find it gone, clean vanished away like the beautiful Melusina of the fable, and the essence of his life gone with it. I have myself known such a man; and who can tell how many histories of circle-squarers, metaphysicians, astrologers, and what not, may not be told in the old German story?

Charles Sanders Peirce

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 09:12:17PM 1 point [-]

Ouch.

But that part about "the essence of his life gone with it" is an exaggeration - or at least, only a temporary loss. There are plenty of vague shadows of ideas out there to be loved and cherished.

Comment author: DSimon 04 November 2010 08:06:19PM *  21 points [-]

Man, I'm amazing! I'm a machine that turns FOOD into IDEAS!

-- T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics #539

Comment author: ciantic 07 November 2010 08:18:19PM *  9 points [-]

I know this is well known, but to supplement the T-Rex:

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.

-Alfréd Rényi/Paul Erdős

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 November 2010 11:05:24PM 14 points [-]

Yes, and don't forget the dual result that a comathematician is a device for turning cotheorems into ffee.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 November 2010 11:03:52PM 1 point [-]

And a cat is a device for turning kibble into cuddle.

Comment author: shokwave 04 November 2010 03:47:46PM 5 points [-]

The course of human progress staggers like a drunk; its steps are quick and heavy but its mind is slow and blunt

-Jesse Michaels of Operation Ivy

Posted because it's a useful and evocative metaphor: the drunk feels himself leaning or falling in one direction, and puts his foot down in that direction to steady himself. If he doesn't step far enough, he is still leaning in the same direction, and he steps again. In this way we can make fantastic progress in directions we don't like while getting further away from the ways we did want to go.

Comment author: XiXiDu 04 November 2010 12:59:29PM *  5 points [-]

I just came across this and thought it was a pretty funny dialogue: "Reality is that which does not go away upon reprogramming." (Check the first 4 comments here: Chatbot Debates Climate Change Deniers on Twitter so You Don’t Have to)

This is of course a paraphrase borrowed from Philip K. Dick's famous statement:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 November 2010 09:08:04PM 11 points [-]

I shared this on another website and got this comment:

Heh, that's one way to pass the Turing Test. Don't make your bot smarter, make it seek out dumb people.

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 05 November 2010 12:33:17PM 3 points [-]

This has been done for a while. A few years ago there was some noise about a russian chatbot which impersonated a good-looking girl and tried to scam people to give personal information and/or money.

Every time it succeeded, it passed the turing test.

Comment author: XiXiDu 04 November 2010 12:37:19PM 15 points [-]

This is a bit long for a rationality quote and isn't really a quote but short enough and worth the read: The most poetic and convincing argument for striving for posthumanity (via aleph.se).

Comment author: Pavitra 07 November 2010 01:04:37AM 3 points [-]

That's kind of depressing.

Comment author: lunchbox 04 November 2010 07:13:54AM *  0 points [-]

All my confidence comes from knowing God's laws.

-- Talib Kweli (substitute "nature" for "God")

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 04 November 2010 09:56:31AM 6 points [-]

-- Talib Kweli (substitute "nature" for "God")

I don't think it would be a good idea to take a Carl Sagan quote and add a 'substitute "God" for "nature"' postscript. I don't think this is a good idea either.

Comment author: lunchbox 04 November 2010 03:09:49PM *  2 points [-]

Talib Kweli is nonreligious, so I'm not changing the meaning of the quotation. "God" is often used poetically. Example:

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not."

Albert Einstein

Even if Kweli were religious the point would not be to put words in his mouth, but to reapply a beautiful quotation to another context where it is meaningful.

Comment author: smdaniel2 08 November 2010 06:09:04AM 0 points [-]

reapplying it to another context changes the meaning. because of einstein's explicitly stated opinions on the meaning of God (and the Lord), we can understand his meaning to be synonymous with that of nature and its order.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " - 1936

Talib Kweli, on the other hand, hasn't given us a clear opinion of his thoughts on the term God. There is no evidence for us to assume that the meaning he gives to the term God would fit in the context of this quote.

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2010 03:23:23AM 6 points [-]

There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would not have enough to live upon.

-Samuel Butler

Comment author: aausch 04 November 2010 03:17:11AM *  14 points [-]

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn."

— T.H. White (The Once and Future King)

Comment author: soreff 04 November 2010 10:57:24PM 3 points [-]

There are exceptions... When a child first learns that he or she is mortal, I doubt that that is a happy day for him or her. Truths are valuable, but some are rather bitter.

Comment author: avalot 06 November 2010 09:47:25PM 0 points [-]

Yes, and I think this is the one big crucial exception... That is the one bit of knowledge that is truly evil. The one datum that is unbearable torture on the mind.

In that sense, one could define an adult mind as a normal (child) mind poisoned by the knowledge-of-death toxin. The older the mind, the more extensive the damage.

Most of us might see it more as a catalyst than a poison, but I think that's insanity justifying itself. We're all walking around in a state of deep existential panic, and that makes us weaker than children.

Comment author: rwallace 07 November 2010 04:39:31PM 3 points [-]

Well, it's not the knowledge of death that's evil, it's the actual phenomenon -- there's not much point blaming the messenger for the bad news. Especially not now we're at the stage where we're beginning to have a chance to do something about it.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 06 November 2010 10:24:54PM 2 points [-]

Ernest Becker agrees with you, but I always read the one star reviews first.

For myself, I've lost touch with Becker's ontology. I'm reduced to making the lame suggestion of playing Go in tournaments in order to practice managing a limited stock of time, such as 70 years.

Comment author: PeterS 03 November 2010 09:51:17PM 5 points [-]

Isaac Newton's argument for intelligent design:

Were all the planets as swift as Mercury or as slow as Saturn or his satellites; or were the several velocities otherwise much greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the distances from the centers about which they move been greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the quantity of matter in the sun or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth (and by consequence their gravitating power) been greater or less than it is; the primary planets could not have revolved about the sun nor the secondary ones about Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, in concentric circles as they do, but would have moved in hyperbolas or parabolas or in ellipses very eccentric. To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets and the gravitating powers resulting from thence.... And to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be, not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.

-- Letter to Richard Bentley

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 06:15:43PM *  0 points [-]

Elements of this argument make an error related to numberplates. I'm surprised this was received so (+4) positively.

Comment author: magfrump 05 November 2010 05:23:48PM 0 points [-]

I thought it was obviously ironic, since planets do actually move in ellipses and general conic sections; Newton makes a falsifiable claim in favor of ID and it is clearly false.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 05 November 2010 09:29:18PM 1 point [-]

Wait, something seems wrong here. Newton knew the planets moved in ellipses. Probable conclusion: He was just referring to the low eccentricity of these ellipses?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 15 November 2010 09:49:47PM *  0 points [-]

I think that the issue was the number of planets. If you had just one planet orbiting the sun, that orbit would be a nice stable one. But if you have multiple bodies orbiting the sun, their paths will interfere chaotically. I think that Newton expected that, in general, you would get wildly erratic orbits, with some planets being thrown clear of the system altogether. As I understand it, he expected such catastrophes to be inevitable, unless you started with a very carefully-selected initial state. God was then necessary to explain how the solar system started out in such an improbable state. But in fact Newton just lacked the mathematical sophistication to see that, according to his own theory, typical initial arrangements could result in systems that are stable for billions of years.

Comment author: Perplexed 05 November 2010 04:44:25AM 5 points [-]

I voted up both Newton quotes because they show how a very smart man can make a very plausible argument which is nevertheless very wrong.

And the reason Newton failed to guess the rather simple explanation is that he observed a solar system that was stable and unchanging and assumed that it must always have been stable and unchanging since the creation. His "biases" just didn't allow him to imagine an evolutionary model of planet formation by accretion from a more-or-less random initial state.

Nowadays of course, we tend to invent evolutionary or historical explanations for everything. We don't even limit ourselves to explaining the origins. We go on to predict how things will likely come to a contingent historical end ... or should I refer to it as our next great adventure?

Comment author: [deleted] 09 November 2010 09:54:29PM *  1 point [-]

Second to this. The planets that remain in sequence and orbit survived the transition from entropy to stability in a way that didn't result in them being ejected or destroyed. Their presence represents them making it through the pachinko machine of amalgamated physical parameters, not intentional design.

Newton's inferences were like assuming a gold tooth has mystical properties because I've put you through a woodchipper and it's the only thing that came out the other end. There is so much to understand about the internals of the machine before you make any solid judgments about the inputs and outputs.

Comment author: PeterS 05 November 2010 04:13:58AM 0 points [-]

Numberplates?

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 04:30:23AM 1 point [-]

"The chance that the numberplate of my first car was EIT411 is one in a whole lot. Wow! It happened! There must be a God!" (crudely speaking.)

This seems to be relevant to, for example, yabbering on about the exact speeds of Saturn et. al. The Saturns that were going the wrong speed all fell in to the sun (or cleared off into space.)

Comment author: PeterS 05 November 2010 10:27:48AM 1 point [-]

Oh... I in no way endorse the above argument! Pierre-Simon Laplace's, a century or so after Newton, gave a naturalistic model of how the Solar System could have developed. "Rationality quotes" is not only about sharing words of wisdom, but also words of folly.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 10:44:00AM 0 points [-]

:) I certainly wasn't intending to accuse you.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 03 November 2010 11:26:44PM *  6 points [-]

Here's another Newton ID quote. This one complements PeterS's because the true naturalistic explanation requires physics that was not implicit in Newton's mechanics.

But how the matter should divide itself into two sorts, and that part of it, which is fit to compose a shining body, should fall down into one mass, and make a sun, and the rest, which is fit to compose an opaque body, should coalesce, not into one great body, like the shining matter, but into many little ones; or, if the sun, at first, were an opaque body, like the planets, or the planets lucid bodies, like the sun, how he alone should be changed into a shining body, whilst all they continue opaque, or all they be changed into opaque ones, whilst he remains unchanged, I do not think more explicable by mere natural causes, but am forced to ascribe it to the counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent.

—Isaac Newton, Four Letters From Sir Isaac Newton To Doctor Bentley Containing Some Arguments In Proof Of A Deity.

Comment author: xamdam 03 November 2010 01:41:32PM 13 points [-]

We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.

Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen)

Comment author: Tesseract 03 November 2010 10:24:21AM 5 points [-]

If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses and oxen to look like oxen, and each would make the gods’ bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.

Xenophanes

Comment author: shokwave 08 November 2010 04:18:04PM 5 points [-]

More likely they would write a treatise on how God wants them to keep pulling carts around.

Comment author: simplyeric 04 November 2010 05:43:45PM 3 points [-]

There might be a strong chance that horses and other animals would draw their gods as having human form. Humans tend to protray their gods as being either equal or higher than humanity. Animist gods are protrayed as having characteristics that surpass humans: speed, wisdom, patience, etc. based on the characteristics of that animal. Alternately, sun gods, storm gods, etc.: higher powers.

Some wild horses would have horse gods or weather gods or wolf gods. Some might have human gods, depending on their interaction with humanity.

I'd imagine that domesticated horses would have human gods, some benevolent and some malignant, or both. And some domesticated horses would go "through the looking glass" and develop a horse-god of redemption, with prophecies of freeing them from the toil and slavery of domestication, based on some original downfall of horse-dom that led to them being subservient to humans.

Or something like that.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 06 November 2010 01:09:59PM 0 points [-]

this should at the very least be turned into a short story.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 November 2010 06:50:47PM 8 points [-]

I'm not sure this makes sense. Empirically many human cultures have deities that are shaped like animals.

Comment author: fortyeridania 08 November 2010 03:49:08PM 0 points [-]

Voted up. My quibble is that gods are often anthropomorphic in mind, if not in body.

Comment author: majus 03 November 2010 06:40:15PM 2 points [-]

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." [Lettres Persanes, no 59]

Comment author: Larks 03 November 2010 07:22:10PM 5 points [-]

Surely he would be circular?

Comment author: Larks 03 November 2010 03:53:03PM 4 points [-]

Well, the Egyptians had animal-headed gods.

Comment author: Tiiba 04 November 2010 04:50:20AM 0 points [-]

With human bodies.

Comment author: joschu 03 November 2010 07:05:45AM *  4 points [-]

Out-of-sample error equals in-sample error plus a penalty for model complexity

Y.S. Abu-Mostafa, in explaining the VC inequality of PAC learning.

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:52:53AM 25 points [-]

Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics.

Dean Schlicter

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:46:09AM 18 points [-]

If you haven’t found something strange during the day, it hasn’t been much of a day.

John Archibald Wheeler

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:30:42AM 53 points [-]

If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top … that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting yesterday’s fortuitous contrivings.

Buckminster Fuller

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:27:08AM 1 point [-]

Truth will sooner come out from error than from confusion.

Francis Bacon

Comment author: simplyeric 04 November 2010 07:01:08PM 0 points [-]

I'm of the mind that politically, in the US at least, we don't seem to learn from this. The truth is, indeed, revealed....but the confusion remains and the errors continue.

There are many who disagree with me about that...

but that's because they're confused AND in error.
(ok ok I kid on that last part...)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 November 2010 11:01:35AM 3 points [-]
Comment deleted 08 November 2010 07:15:59PM [-]
Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 November 2010 07:25:07PM 1 point [-]

Use the search box to check any quotation you're thinking of posting.

Comment author: anonym 04 November 2010 03:47:38AM 0 points [-]

Oops, I'm sorry. I must have forgotten to check that one first.

Comment author: PeterS 03 November 2010 05:22:17AM *  20 points [-]

Rule I

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

Rule II

Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

Rule III

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to itself. . .

Rule IV

In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Isaac Newton, Philosophiae naturalis: Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2010 05:21:09AM 17 points [-]

Getting caught up in style and throwing away victory is something for the lower ranks to do. Captains can't even think about doing such a carefree thing. Don't try to be a good guy. It doesn't matter who owes who. From the instant they enter into a war, both sides are evil.

Related to: Politics, Protection

Comment author: Perplexed 03 November 2010 02:54:38AM *  14 points [-]

David Hume was right to predict that superstition would survive for hundreds of years after his death, but how could he have anticipated that his own work would inspire Kant to invent a whole new package of superstitions? Or that the incoherent system of Marx would move vast populations to engineer their own ruin? Or that the infantile rantings of the author of Mein Kampf would be capable of bringing the whole world to war?

Perhaps we will one day succeed in immunizing our societies against such bouts of collective idiocy by establishing a social contract in which each child is systematically instructed in Humean skepticism. Such a new Emile would learn about the psychological weaknesses to which Homo sapiens is prey, and so would understand the wisdom of treating all authorities - political leaders and social role-models, academics and teachers, philosophers and prophets, poets and pop stars - as so many potential rogues and knoves, each out to exploit the universal human hunger for social status. He would therefore appreciate the necessity of doing all of his own thinking for himself. He would understand why and when to trust his neighbors. Above all, he would waste no time yearning for utopias that are incompatible with human nature.

-- Ken Binmore, in Natural Justice, p56

Comment author: MichaelVassar 03 November 2010 11:23:13PM 7 points [-]

Science works by scientists not doing all their thinking for themselves. That's also how it fails. Getting the balance right may be hard, but no-one has really tried very hard, so it may not be. Trying to do that is largely what I see SIAI as being about.

Comment author: simplyeric 04 November 2010 05:35:09PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure that's true. The issue isn't what a person "thinks"...it's what a person ultimately concludes. A scientist must think for itself in order to hypothesize, no? I think science goes wrong when scientists conclude for themselves, in the face of the actul facts on the matter.
I think what is being referenced above is how to separate information from who said it, and how.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 12:10:43AM 4 points [-]

Hmmm. A mathematician learning a new field thinks for himself, up to a point. Oh, he gets his ideas, theorems, and even proofs from the book, but he is supposed to verify the thinking for himself.

The same kind of thing applies to scientists. They get ideas, formulas, and even empirical data from other scientists, but they are supposed to verify the inferences and even some of the derivations themselves. At least in their own field. A neuroscientist using FMRI doesn't need to know the fine points of the portions of QED dealing with particle spins in a varying magnetic field. Nor the computer science involved in the image processing. But he does appreciate that these tools, whether he understands them in detail himself or not, are not based on tradition or authority, but instead draw their legitimacy from the work of his colleagues in those fields who definitely do think for themselves.

If the balance you seek to strike is the balance that lets you distinguish path-breaking innovation from crackpottery, I would suggest this: It is ok to try doing something that the experts think is impossible if you really understand why they are so pessimistic and you think you might understand why they are wrong.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 November 2010 03:31:14AM 1 point [-]

I like the sentiment, but - instructed in Humean skepticism? Isn't that going overboard in the opposite direction?

Comment author: Perplexed 03 November 2010 04:37:49AM *  4 points [-]

Binmore is on something of a "Hume is God, Kant is Satan" kick in this book. Another quote I like deals with Binmore's efforts to comprehend the "categorical imperative":

It eventually dawned on me that I was reading the work of an emperor who was clothed in nothing more than the obscurity of his prose.

I share much of Binmore's enthusiasm for Hume. I don't think that rationalists have much reason to dislike Hume's skepticism. Hume was a practical man, and his famous argument against induction is far from a counsel of epistemological despair. As for instructing the young to be skeptical of gods - well it may violate the US Constitution, but then so does gun control. ;)

Nonetheless, I suspect that many people here would not care much for this particular quote in its full context - starting a couple paragraphs before my quote and continuing a paragraph further.

Comment author: neq1 03 November 2010 01:20:47AM 0 points [-]

Justice is an artefact of custom. Where customs are unsettled its dictates soon become dated. Ideas of justice are as timeless as fashions in hats.

-John Gray, Straw Dogs

Comment author: jfm 03 November 2010 02:38:59PM 3 points [-]
  1. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

  2. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.

  3. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.

~ Epicurus, Principal Doctrines

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 03 November 2010 02:18:15AM *  3 points [-]

...justice is rooted in a system of conventions. They arise spontaneously as behavioural equilibria that bring mutual advantage to those adopting them. They protect life, limb, property and the pursuit of peaceful purposes, and require the fulfilment of reciprocal promises.

-Anthony de Jasay, Inspecting the Foundations of Liberalism

Conventions against torts like murder and theft are older than civilization. I think it is a safe bet they will still be around in a thousand years.

Comment author: neq1 03 November 2010 01:18:30AM 0 points [-]

Who has not experienced the chilling memory of the better things? How it creeps over the spirit of one's current dreams! Like the specter at the banquet it stands, its substanceless eyes viewing with a sad philosophy the make-shift feast.

-Theodore Dreiser, The Titan

Comment author: AlanCrowe 02 November 2010 10:17:29PM 9 points [-]

If, instead of welcoming inquiry and criticism, the admirers of a great author accept his writings as authoritative, both in their excellences and in their defects, the most serious injury is done to truth. In matters of philosophy and science, authority has ever been the great opponent of truth. A despotic calm is usually the triumph of error. In the republic of the sciences, sedition and even anarchy are beneficial in the long run to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

William Stanley Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, 1871: p.275-6

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 10:07:31PM *  1 point [-]

Not a quote about rationalism, but probably relevant to Less Wrong:

Pure Death

We looked, we loved, and therewith instantly

Death became terrible to you and me.

By love we disenthralled our natural terror

From every comfortable philosopher

Or tall, grey doctor of divinity:

Death stood at last in his true rank and order.

It happened soon, so wild of heart were we,

Exchange of gifts grew to a malady:

Their worth rose always higher on each side

Till there seemed nothing but ungivable pride

That yet remained ungiven, and this degree

Called a conclusion not to be denied.

Then we at last bethought ourselves, made shift

And simultaneously this final gift

Gave: each with shaking hands unlocks

The sinister, long, brass-bound coffin-box,

Unwraps pure death, with such bewilderment

As greeted our love's first accomplishment.

--Robert Graves

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2010 08:16:11PM 1 point [-]

I read this one last week:

 "When human beings found out about death
They sent the dog to Chukwu with a message:
They wanted to be let back to the house of life.
They didn't want to end up lost forever
Like burnt wood disappearing into smoke
And ashes that get blown away to nothing.
Instead, they saw their souls in a flock at twilight
Cawing and headed back for the same old roosts
(The dog was meant to tell all this to Chukwu)..."

--"A Dog Was Crying Tonight in Wicklow Also", Seamus Heaney, pg 66, The Spirit Level (1996)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:43:19PM 20 points [-]

The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.

H.L. Mencken, Minority Report.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 11:31:11PM 4 points [-]

I wrote about this.

The idea is: I can criticize a plan that claims wonderful successes, even if I have no corresponding plan of my own. Maybe we don't know how to get wonderful successes at all. Maybe they're impossible. Maybe your reasoning is suspect.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 November 2010 09:48:54PM 1 point [-]

I am not sure I get it.

Comment author: sketerpot 02 November 2010 10:16:27PM *  8 points [-]

A more direct paraphrasing would be, Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean that your answers are correct.

A concrete example: just because scientists don't currently know everything about how evolution happened, that doesn't mean that Young Earth Creationists are right. Typical YEC debating strategy is to look for gaps (real or imagined) in our current theories, and act as if that proves that God created the world in six days, and from the dust created every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, etc.

Comment author: ciphergoth 02 November 2010 10:43:00PM -2 points [-]

No, it speaks of remedy. It's not about beliefs about the world, but about courses of action, and there he's dead wrong - a course of action can only be bad by comparison to a better alternative.

Comment author: BillyOblivion 03 November 2010 01:58:10PM 1 point [-]

But sometimes that better alternative is "let's wait and see". And that's what many people aren't willing to do.

Comment author: David_Gerard 03 November 2010 09:49:24AM *  4 points [-]

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." is a fallacy. (The Politician's Syllogism.) Mencken's statement pretty clearly includes the course of action of not taking action; he's stating that any action is not necessarily better than no action, and that taking on any belief is not necessarily better than holding no belief.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 November 2010 03:34:13AM 5 points [-]

We can call a course of action bad if doing nothing is a better alternative.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 02 November 2010 10:55:21PM *  7 points [-]

I don't think either of you are getting it right. I'm not familiar with the context of this particular quote, but knowing it's from Mencken, he's clearly referring to various idealistic busybodies and their grand (and typically disastrously unsound) plans to solve the world's problems. The quote is directed against idealists who assume moral high ground and scoff at those who question their designs.

Comment author: ciphergoth 02 November 2010 11:05:59PM 1 point [-]

Ah, so it's about whether a plan meets some absolute standard, rather than which plan is best, and the moral is that just because I don't know of a plan that meets standard X is no reason to think your plan will - in fact the reverse.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 02 November 2010 11:29:02PM 5 points [-]

I think the absolute standard in question is the status quo. Will the proposed remedy make things worse? Mencken has no remedy of his own. In the first sentence he denies that this lack is evidence in favour of the proposition that somebody else's remedy will be an improvement on leaving things alone.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 02 November 2010 11:26:40PM 4 points [-]

Basically, yes. For instance, the alcohol prohibitionists of Mencken's day were a prime example of the sort of people he targeted with this quote.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:36:22PM *  6 points [-]

Beware of no man more than of yourself; we carry our worst enemies within us.

Charles H. Spurgeon