Armok_GoB comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2012 12:26AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (353)

Tags: seq_epistemology

Comments (353)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: JMiller 05 December 2012 02:07:24AM * 1 point [-]

I am somewhat confused about the nature of logical axioms. They are not reducible to physical laws, and physical laws are not reducible to logic. So then, it what sense are they (axioms) real? I don't think you are saying that they are "out there" in some Platonic sense, but it also seems like you are taking a realist or quasi-empirical approach to math/logic.

Comment author: Armok_GoB comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: shminux 05 December 2012 10:44:38PM 3 points [-]

This is extremely controversial, so I'd not use the word "false" here.

Comment author: JMiller 05 December 2012 04:44:32PM 2 points [-]

I don't have time to read this this week, but when I do I will get back to you. Thanks for the article.

Comment author: JMiller 15 December 2012 05:35:24AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the paper! I have started to read this and am admittedly overwhelmed. I think I understand the concept, but without the ability to understand the math, I feel limited in my scope to comprehend this. Would you be able to give my a brief summary of why we should accept MUH and why it is controversial?

Comment author: Armok_GoB 15 December 2012 05:40:43PM * 1 point [-]

We should believe MUH because it's mathematically impossible to consistently believe in anything that's not maths, because beliefs are made of maths and can't refer to things that are not maths.

It' controversial because humans are crazy, and can't ignore things genetically hard coded into their subconscious no matter how little sense it makes.

RDIT: Appears I were stupid an interpreted your question literally instead of trying to make an actual persuasive explanation.

Can't really help you with that, I absolutely suck at explain things, especially things I see as self evident. I literally can not imagine what it being any other way would even mean, so I can't explain how to get from there to here.

Comment author: JMiller 16 December 2012 06:27:35PM 1 point [-]

I appreciate your attempt to try though. Thanks.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2012 05:56:50PM * 1 point [-]

beliefs are made of maths and can't refer to things that are not maths.

...to me that sounds like saying "words are made of letters and can't refer to things that are not letters, therefore e.g. trees and clouds must be made of letters." It sounds like a map-territory confusion of insane degree.

The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis may be true, but this argument doesn't really work for me.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 16 December 2012 01:42:17AM 0 points [-]

Correct, I've edited my post to clarify.

Comment author: Peterdjones 15 December 2012 05:44:03PM 1 point [-]

We should believe MUH because

it's mathematically impossible to consistently believe in anything that's not maths,

I can see no evidence fror that.

because beliefs are made of maths

or that.

and can't refer to things that are not maths.

or that. I also don't see how the conclusion follows even if they are all true.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 16 December 2012 01:41:47AM 0 points [-]

Yea I were stupid, edited my post.

Armok_GoB comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (353)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (353)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login