RobbBB 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.

Comments (353)

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

Comment author: RobbBB 10 December 2012 03:36:27AM *  0 points [-]

The edit is fine. Let me add that 'the' totality fact may be a misleading locution. Nearly every model that can be analyzed factwise contains its own totality fact, and which model we're in will change what the 'totality' is, hence what the shape of the totality fact is.

We can be confident that there is at least one fact of this sort in reality, simply because trivialism is false. But GRTd does constrain what that fact will have to look like: It will have to be purely logical and physical, and/or derivable from the purely logical and physical truths. (And the only thing we could derive a Big Totality Fact from would be other, smaller totality facts like 'there's no more square,' plus a second-order totality fact.)

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2012 05:13:05AM *  0 points [-]

Excellent, I think I understand. GRTd sounds good to me, and I think you should convince EY to adopt it as opposed to GRTt/m.