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

CCC comments on Leave a Line of Retreat - Less Wrong

59 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 February 2008 11:57PM

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

Comments (72)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: CCC 14 October 2014 02:34:32PM 2 points [-]

While that is a world without rationality, it seems a fairly extreme case.

Another example of a world without rationality is a world in which, the more you work towards achieving a goal, the longer it takes to reach that goal; so an elderly man might wander distractedly up Mount Everest to look for his false teeth with no trouble, but a team of experienced mountaineers won't be able to climb a small hill. Even if they try to follow the old man looking for his teeth, the universe notices their intent and conspires against them. And anyone who notices this tendency and tries to take advantage of it gets struck by lightning (even if they're in a submarine at the time) and killed instantly.

Comment author: Voltairina 15 October 2014 12:46:08AM 4 points [-]

That reminds me of Hofstadter's Law: "It will always take longer than you think it is going to take. Even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."

Comment author: JustinMElms 22 July 2016 11:02:37PM 0 points [-]

I like both Volairina and your takes on the non-rational world. I was having a lot of trouble working something out.

That said, while Voltairina's world is a bit more horrifyingly extreme than yours, it seems to me more probably that cause and effect simply did not exist. I can envision a structure of elementary physics that simply change--functionally randomly--far more easily than that causality does exist, but operates in the inverse. I have more trouble envisioning the elementary physics that bring that into existence without a observational intellect directly upsetting motivated plans.

All that is to say, might not your case be the more extreme one?

Comment author: CCC 17 August 2016 03:02:59PM 1 point [-]

...it's possible. There are many differences between our proposed worlds, and it really depends on what you mean by "more extreme". Volairina's world is "more extreme" in the sense that there are no rules, no patterns to take advantage of. My world is "more extreme" in that the rules actively punish rationality.

My world requires that elementary physics somehow takes account of intent, and then actively subverts it. This means that it reacts in some way to something as nebulous as intent. This implies some level of understanding of the concept of intent. This, in turn, implies (as you state) an observational intellect - and worse, a directly malevolent one. Volairina's can exist without a directly malevolent intelligence directing things.

So it really comes down to what you mean by "extreme", I guess. Both proposed worlds are extreme cases, in their own way.

Comment author: JustinMElms 18 August 2016 04:30:17PM 0 points [-]

Fair point.