Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Michael_Rooney comments on Semantic Stopsigns - Less Wrong

54 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 August 2007 07:29PM

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

Comments (103)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Michael_Rooney 24 August 2007 11:53:19PM 5 points [-]

Eliezer: "How could anyone not notice this?"

Because the human brain -- like many simpler programs -- generally finds basic beliefs more practical than an infinite regress?

Comment author: DanielLC 28 December 2009 07:26:32PM 14 points [-]

Infinite regress is still a semantic stopsign. If all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens, the obvious next question is "Why is there an infinite regress of chickens and eggs?"

There are certainly possible infinite regressions that don't exist, so it can't exist simply because of an infinite regress.

Comment author: MrMormon 03 April 2012 05:45:03AM 1 point [-]

Sometimes, the question "why?" is meaningless. If "all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens" is a premise, that is the "why". Asking the why of the why is a tautology.

Comment author: DanielLC 03 April 2012 04:09:32PM 2 points [-]

But why do you assume all chickens came from eggs and all eggs came from chickens?

How is this different than just having "God exists" as a premise?

Comment author: jopt2 25 August 2012 08:05:30PM 1 point [-]

I don't think it is different in itself. I think some premises are more useful than others, an the anticipating-experience-sense.

Comment author: Rixie 25 January 2013 04:36:57AM -2 points [-]

I know that this doesn't actually contribute in any way, but chickens were bred into exsistance by humans, so, one female bird was bred with a different male bird and the resulting eggs were chickens. Therefore, the egg came before the chicken.