wedrifid comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (513)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 April 2012 12:23:17AM *  5 points [-]

the QM sequence is the least read of the sequences, and yet makes a lot of EY's key points used later on identity and decision theory.

Something I recall noticing at the time I read said posts is that some of the groundwork you mention didn't necessarily need to be in with the QM. Sure, there are a few points that you can make only by reference to QM but many of the points are not specifically dependent on that part of physics. (ie. Modularization fail!)

Comment author: David_Gerard 15 April 2012 12:38:39AM 2 points [-]

That there are no individual particles is something of philosophical import that it'd be difficult to say without bludgeoning the point home, as the possibility is such a strong implicit philosophical assumption and physics having actually delivered the smackdown may be surprising. But yeah, even that could be moved elsewhere with effort. But then again, the sequences are indeed being revised and distilled into publishable rather than blog form ...

Comment author: wedrifid 15 April 2012 01:07:58AM 6 points [-]

That there are no individual particles is something of philosophical import that it'd be difficult to say without bludgeoning the point home, as the possibility is such a strong implicit philosophical assumption and physics having actually delivered the smackdown may be surprising.

Yes, that's the one thing that really relies on it. And the physics smackdown was surprising to me when I read it.

But yeah, even that could be moved elsewhere with effort.

Ideal would seem to be having the QM sequence then later having an identity sequences wherein one post does an "import QM;".

Of course the whole formal 'sequence' notion is something that was invented years later. These are, after all, just a stream of blog posts that some guy spat out extremely rapidly. At that time they were interlinked as something of a DAG, with a bit of clustering involved for some of the bigger subjects.

I actually find the whole 'sequence' focus kind of annoying. In fact I've never read the sequences. What I have read a couple of times is the entire list of blog posts for several years. This includes some of my favorite posts which are stand alone and don't even get a listing in the 'sequences' page.

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 April 2012 07:30:51AM 8 points [-]

Yes! I try to get people to read the "sequences" in ebook form, where they are presented in simple chronological order. And the title is "Eliezer Yudkowsky, blog posts 2006-2010".

Comment author: [deleted] 15 April 2012 03:34:00AM 6 points [-]

I actually find the whole 'sequence' focus kind of annoying. In fact I've never read the sequences. What I have read a couple of times is the entire list of blog posts for several years. This includes some of my favorite posts which are stand alone and don't even get a listing in the 'sequences' page.

Totally, there are whole sequences of really good posts that get no mention in the wiki.