= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on LW Women Entries- Creepiness - 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 (472)
People who don't believe that beliefs should pay rent? People who think math interferes with understanding reality?
People who think Eliezer is wrong about MWI, and that his wrongness is likely to interfere with raising the sanity line?
Those might work.
I seem to see more criticism of that than support.
Right. On LW, thinking Eliezer is wrong on QM and that it matters is a clown suit belief.
There's no reason to think a belief is right just because it is a clown suit belief in a particular context.
Edit: Gwern, I think I misread you, so this post accurately states my position, but probably isn't responsive to your comment.
You think that those of us who disagree with EY on QM look ridiculous to most members of LW? I think gwern was saying that criticism of EY's stance is the majority opinion on this website
I think that the locally respectable position is that EY's mistakes describing QM don't matter. I think the purpose of describing QM was to articulate a position in philosophy-of-science.
Whether EY made particular errors is irrelevant to the philosophy-of-science point. And any errors in the philosophy-of-science point are probably irrelevant to raising the sanity line.
Oh, well-clarified. Thank you.
I personally find EY's arrogance regarding MWI off-putting, but I suppose I stuck around the site anyway, so I don't know whether it's driving away others.
yeah. I... antipredict that EY is wrong on QM, but don't expect it to matter.
Are there such people? On LessWrong??
We drove off the most recent one. But it took an unfortunate long time.