afeller08 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: [deleted] 25 October 2012 01:35:12AM *  1 point [-]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I've always supposed that we do live in a multi-tiered causal universe. It seems to me that the "laws of physics" are a first tier which affect everything in the second tier (the tier with all of the matter including us), but that there's nothing we can do here in the matter tier to affect the laws of physics. I've also always assumed that this was how practically everyone who uses the phrase 'laws of physics' uses it.

So you mean we live in a multitier universe with no bridging laws and the higher tiers are predictable fully from the lower tiers? Why not just call it a single tier universe then? Especially because your hypothesis is not distinguishable from the single-tier, which is simpler, so you have no good reason to ever have encountered it. "Such and such is true, but that has no causal consequences, but it's truth is still somehow correllated with my belief". (note that that statement violates the markov-whatsit assumption and breaks causality).

Forgive me if I misunderstood.

Comment author: afeller08 25 October 2012 07:21:23AM 2 points [-]

You're right. My hypothesis is not really distinguishable from the single tier. I'm pretty sure the division I made was a vestigial from the insanely complicated hacked-up version of reality I constructed to believe in back when I devised a version of simulationism that was meant to allow me to accept the findings of modern science without abandoning my religious beliefs (back before I'd ever heard of rationalism or Baye's theorem when I was still asking the question "Does the evidence permit me to believe, and, if not, how can I re-construe it so that it does?" because that once made sense to me.)

When I posted my question, the distinction between 'laws of physics' and 'everything else' was obvious to me. But obvious or not, the distinction is meaningless. Thanks for pointing that out.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 October 2012 07:37:25PM *  1 point [-]

Baye's

His name was Bayes, not Baye. FYI

Congradulations on throwing out bad religious beliefs.

Comment author: shminux 25 October 2012 07:58:42PM 6 points [-]

His name was Bayes, not Baye. FYI

Congradulations [sic]

Muphry's law strikes again!

Comment author: DaFranker 25 October 2012 08:11:59PM *  3 points [-]

Sometimes I feel like there should be separate tagvote buttons instead of linear up/down, for things like "+Insightful", "+Well Worded", and "+INSANELY FUNNY".

This is not one of those times. The parent qualifies for all three.