= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Seeking a "Seeking Whence 'Seek Whence'" Sequence - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (32)
It looks as if you (Will) are trying to make some sort of equivalence between the idea of "going meta" and the "principle of sufficient reason", but surely these are completely different things.
Going meta (in the sense used here): saying "OK, so is there a reason why this is the way it is, and if so what's the reason?"
Principle of sufficient reason: "Everything that is true is true because of some prior reason sufficient to make it true."
PSR is not at all the same thing as "going meta"; it's not even the same kind of thing as "going meta"; it is one particular opinion about what sort of answers one will get when one goes meta.
It doesn't seem to me that the PSR is credible enough to warrant the sort of amount of attention you're trying to give it here, and in particular tying it to LWers' fondness for meta-ness seems entirely out of order.
(It feels to me as if the nearest thing to the PSR in LW tradition is not the idea of "going meta" but the idea of Solomonoff induction. But I haven't thought this through very hard.)