= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sniffnoy comments on Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences) - 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 (245)
You can make exactly the same predictions with phlogiston. If you burn coal next to iron, it will refine it. You could predict this with oxygen (oxygen is moving from the iron to the coal) or with phlogiston (phlogiston is moving from the coal to the iron).
It's like with electric charge. If you think of it as positive charge moving around, it has almost exactly the same predictive power as thinking of it as electrons moving around.
But you can only predict it if you already know that a gain of phlogiston refines iron; if you don't, you can only observe it afterward and write it down as a property of phlogiston.
If you don't know anything about oxygen or phlogiston beforehand, then, sure, they're pretty much equally predictive, i.e., not very much. But if "oxygen" is not in fact just an arbitrary label as "phlogiston" is, but in fact something you're already working with in other ways, then they're not symmetric.
Also as Nick Tarleton points out below there are other asymmetries, though those are not so much in the predictive power.
"But you can only predict it if you already know that a gain of phlogiston refines iron"
Same goes for oxygen.
Okay, I admit that that's not really a prediction, but until then, they couldn't even explain it.
If you're going to do it like this, what's one thing oxygen predicted?
By the way, I'm responding to the fact that I lost two karma points on that, not any actual post.
That's what I just said.
Sorry. Too used to defending my position to realize you're not attacking it.