= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sewing-Machine comments on Exponentiation goes wrong first - 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 (81)
I'm teasing. I don't think your domino argument can be used to support induction.
Ok. So joking aside, do you want to make a bet on an inconsistency being found in PA in the next five years? 10 years?
I am fairly certain that no inconsistency will be found in the next 10 years.
Incidentally, I'm a little put off by your bringing up betting so early in the conversation. Isn't it clear that I'm interested in talking about this stuff? That should be enough, especially before you've even located a place where you and I disagree.
I'll mention that if PA is inconsistent, then a consistent prior probability distribution must have P(PA is inconsistent) = 1. (This might not be true if PA is consistent.) Developing a formalism for handling uncertainty about mathematical truths is a line of research in the same ballpark as developing mathematics without induction.
Hmm, I'm not sure why that would be off-putting. There must be some theory of mind issue I'm missing (possibly some sort of implication by suggesting bets that has some sort of negative connotation that I'm not picking up).
Yes, hence making time-based estimates makes more sense.
Ok. So what is your reasoning behind this conclusion?
That you don't think the other party is capable of marshaling arguments to make you update, or of updating on your arguments.
An estimate of how much progress is made on this sort of problem per man-hour, and of how many man-hours will be devoted to the problem in the next ten years. But I am simply agnostic about whether or not a contradiction can be found "in principle."
The LW community probably considers betting on a disputed proposition to be much more normal, natural, and non-confrontational than most people do. This is likely because of our Overcoming Bias heritage and Robin Hanson's work on prediction markets. Betting seems like a good quick way to get people to publicly quantify the probabilities that they assign to propositions. And this, ideally, could help the disputants approach Aumann agreement more quickly.
Ah, I see. That's not an intended implication. I prefer constructing bets because it forces one (myself) to think carefully about how confident I actually am for a claim. But I see how one might think that.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense.
That make a lot of sense. Presumably this issue is connected to the problem that no one seems to have any idea how one would go about finding such a contradiction.
Incidentally, seriously thinking about these sorts of issues brings up strange issues of equiconsistency. I'm particularly now wondering about the equiconsistency statuses of Robinson arithmetic, the arithmetic hierarchy and, and PA. I don't know of any result that says something morally like contradictions in PA can be imported into contradictions in Robinson arithmetic (or some extension via the arithmetic hierarchy), but this is pushing the bounds of my knowledge on these issues. Does anyone know if there are any results of that flavor or results in the other direction?