army1987 comments on Causal Reference - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 October 2012 10:12PM

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

Comments (242)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 October 2012 09:27:23PM 9 points [-]

Okay, I can see that I need to spell out in more detail one of the ideas here - namely that you're trying to generalize over a repeating type of causal link and that reference is pinned down by such generalization. The Sun repeatedly sends out light in individual Sun-events, electrons repeatedly go on traveling through space instead of vanishing; in a universe like ours, rather than the F(i) being whole new transition tables randomly generated each time, you see the same F(physics) over and over. This is what you can pin down and refer to. Any causal graph is acyclic and can be divided as you say; the surprising thing is that there are no F-types, no causal-link-types, which (over repeating time) descend from one kind of variable to another, without (over time) there being arrows also going back from that kind to the other. Yes, we're generalizing and inducting over time, otherwise it would make no sense to speak of thingies that "affect each other". No two individual events ever affect each other!

Comment author: [deleted] 21 October 2012 10:27:46PM 3 points [-]

Maybe you should elaborate on this in a top-level post.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 October 2012 04:29:15AM 2 points [-]

I edited the main post to put it in.

Comment author: William_Quixote 29 October 2012 09:55:31PM 1 point [-]

I will probably reskim the post, but in general it’s not clear to me that editing content into a preexisting posts is better than incorporating then into the next post where it would be appropriate. The former provides the content to all people yet to read it and all people who will reread it while the latter provides the content to all people who yet to read it. So you are trading the time value of getting updated content to the people who will reread this post faster at the expense of not getting updated content to those who will read the next post but not reread the present post.

I don’t have readership and rereadership stats, but this seems like an answerable question.