ChristianKl comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (268)
I was pleasantly surprised by empiricism in HPMOR.
It starts out with Harry's father believing that there's no way magic can exist, his mother believing it does and then Harry advocating using the empiric method to find out. Harry runs experiments to find out about the inheritance of magic. He runs experiments where he varies various factors to find out when a spell works with Hermione.
What's wrong with that kind of empiricism?
You have exhausted all of the examples that I can recall from the entire series. That's what's wrong.
The rest of the time Harry thinks up a clever explanation, and once the explanation is clever enough to solve all the odd constraints placed on it, (1) he stops looking for other explanations, and (2) he doesn't check to see if he is actually right.
Nominally, Harry is supposed to have learned his lesson in his first failed experimentation in magic with Hermoine. But in reality and in relation to the overarching plot, there was very little experimentation and much more "that's so clever it must be true!" type thinking.
"That's so clever it must be true!" basically sums up the sequence's justification for many-worlds, to tie us back to the original complaint in the OP.
Examples:
Comed-tea in ch. 14
Wizards losing their power in chap. 22
Atlantis in chap. 24
Gateway to the after life in chap. 39:
Laws of magic in chap. 85:
Vision and the invisibility cloak in chap. 95:
Centaurs and astrology in chap. 101
How is this 'literally the exact same logic that ID proponents use?' Creationists fallacize away the concept of natural selection, but I don't see how Harry is being unreasonable, given what he knows about the universe.
He's saying "I don't understand how magic could have come into being, it must have been invented by somebody." When in fact there could be dozens of other alternative theories.
I'll give you one that took me only three seconds to think up: the method for using magic isn't a delusion of the caster as Harry thought, but a mass delusion of all wizards everywhere. E.g. confounding every wizard in existence, or at least some threshold to think that Fixus Everthingus was a real spell would make it work. Maybe all it would have take to get his experiments with Hermoine to work is to confound himself as well, making it a double-blind experiment as it really should have been.
His argument here really is exactly the same as an intelligent designer: "magic is too complicated and arbitrary to be the result of some physical process."
He actually does kind of address that, by pointing out that there are only two known processes that produce purposeful effects:
So, yeah, I disagree strongly that the two arguments are "exactly the same". That's the sort of thing you say more for emphasis than for its being true.
I stand by my claim that they are the same.
An intelligent designer says "I have exhausted every possible hypothesis, there must be a god creator behind it all" when in fact there was at least one perfectly plausible hypothosis (natural selection) which he failed to thoroughly consider.
Harry says essentially "I have exhausted every possible hypothesis--natural selection and intelligent design--and there must be an Atlantean engineer behind it all" when in fact there were other perfectly plausible arguments such as the coordinated belief of a quorum of wizardkind explanation that I gave.
That doesn't address the question of why magic exists (not to mention it falls afoul of Occam's Razor). You seem to be answering a completely different question.
The question in the story and in this thread was "why purposeful complexity?" not "why magic?"
Your proposal is equally complex, if not more. What's causing the hallucinations?
You may be right, but it is still more parsimonious than your idea (which requires some genuinely bizarre mechanism, far more than it being a self-delusion).
Not really. You've seen the movie Sphere, or read the book? Magic could be similar: the source of magic is a wish-granting device that makes whatever someone with wizard gene think of, actually happen. Of course this is incredibly dangerous--all I have to do is shout "don't think of the Apocalypse!" in a room of wizards and watch the world end. So early wizards like Merlin interdicted by using their magic to implant false memories into the entire wizarding population to provide a sort of basic set of safety rules -- magic requires wands, enchantments have to be said correctly with the right hand motion, creating new spells requires herculean effort, etc. None of that would be true, but the presence of other wizards in the world thinking it were true would be enough to make the wish-granting device enforce the rules anyway.
I think you're missing the point of the Many Worlds posts in the Sequences. I'll link to my response here.
Regarding HPMoR, Eliezer would agree that Harry's success rate is absurdly unrealistic (even for a story about witchcraft and wizardry). He wrote about this point in the essay "Level 2 Intelligent Characters":
I would agree with you, however, that HPMoR lets Harry intuit the right answer on the first guess too much. I would much prefer that the book prioritize pedagogy over literary directness, and in any case I have a taste for stories that meander and hit a lot of dead ends. (Though I'll grant that this is an idiosyncratic taste on my part.)
As a last resort, I think HPMoR could just have told us, in narration, about a bunch of times Harry failed, before describing in more detail the time he succeeded. A few sentences like this scattered throughout the story could at least reduce the message to system 2 that rationalist plans should consistently succeed, even if the different amounts of vividness mean that it still won't get through to system 1. But this is a band-aid; the deeper solution is just to find lots of interesting lessons and new developments you can tell about while Harry fails in various ways, so you aren't just reciting a litany of undifferentiated failures.
There's a difference between succeeding too often and succeeding despite not testing his ideas. The problem isn't having too many failed ideas, the problem is that testing is how one rules out a failed idea, so he seems unreasonably lucky in the sense that his refusal to test has unreasonably few consequences.
Without rereading I can recall experiment with time tuners where Harry finds out "Don't mess with time".
But what might be missing is a detailed exploration of "learning from mistakes". Harry get's things right through being smart.
That's an anti-example. He had a theory for how time turners could be used in a clever way to perform computation. His first experiment actually confirmed the consistent-timeline theory of time turners, but revealed the problem domain to be much larger than he had considered. Rather than construct a more rigorous and tightly controlled experiment to get at the underlying nature of timeline selection, he got spooked and walked away. It became a lesson in anti-empiricism: some things you just don't investigate.
That's exactly the problem. Rationalists get things right by relying on reality being consistent, not any particular smartness. You could be a total numbnut but still be good at checking other people's theories against reality and do better than the smartest guy in the world who thinks his ideas are too clever to be wrong.
So Harry got things right by relying on reality being consistent, until the very end, when reality turned out to be even more consistent than he could have thought. I think it is the most valuable lesson from HPMoR.
Except that it is a piece of fiction. Harry got things right because the author wrote it that way. In reality Harry acting the way Harry did would have been more likely to settle on a clever-sounding theory which he never tested until it was too late and which turned out to be hopelessly wrong and got him killed. But that's not how Yudkowsky chose to write the story.
I agree. Still, even if Harry died, my point would still stand.