= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Slider comments on Explanations for Less Wrong articles that you didn't understand - 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 (118)
So it seems to me you're denying that the world is in any sense deterministic, and so it's perfectly possible for human beings to be anomalous agents, just because everything is potentially anomalous. Is that right?
If you are anomalous you would have to be anomalous in some way and then that way would be a law, so no.
Well, by 'anomalous' I just mean 'doesn't obey any law'. I think maybe this was a poor choice of words. At any rate, in the great grandparent you said
I'm not sure what you want to say now.
This was to mean that laws obey the natural rather than the other way around in responce to >So, are you saying that the natural world (ourselves included) don't 'obey' any sort of law, but that natural law is just a more or less consistent generalization about what does happen?