Peterdjones comments on Logical Pinpointing - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2012 03:33PM

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

Comments (338)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 November 2012 04:30:24PM 1 point [-]

EY seems to be taken with the resemblance between a causal diagram and the abstract structure of axioms, inferences and theorems in mathematcal logic. But there are differences: with causality, our evidence is the latest causal output, the leaf nodes. We have to trace back to the Big Bang from them.However, in maths we start from axioms, and cannot get directly to the theorems or leaf nodes. We could see this process as exploring a pre-existing territory, but it is hard to see what this adds, since the axioms and rules of inference are sufficient for truth, and it is hard to see, in EY's presentation how literally he takes the idea.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 November 2012 09:57:06PM 3 points [-]

Er, no, causal models and logical implications seem to me very different in how they propagate modularly. Unifying the two is going to be troublesome.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 November 2012 09:54:22PM -1 points [-]

We could see this process as exploring a pre-existing territory, but it is hard to see what this adds, since the axioms and rules of inference are sufficient for truth, and it is hard to see, in EY's presentation how literally he takes the idea.

It's useful for reasoning heuristically about conjectures.

Comment author: Peterdjones 05 November 2012 10:28:29AM 0 points [-]

Could I have an example?