Things philosophers have debated

Eliezer Yudkowsky

I just had to stare at this a while. We can have papers published about this, we really ought to be able to get papers published about Friendly AI subproblems.

My favorite part is at the very end.

Trivialism is the theory that every proposition is true. A consequence of trivialism is that all statements, including all contradictions of the form "p and not p" (that something both 'is' and 'isn't' at the same time), are true.^[1]

[edit]See also

[edit]References

^ Graham Priest; John Woods (2007). "Paraconsistency and Dialetheism". The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic. Elsevier. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-444-51623-7.

[edit]Further reading

Paul Kabay (2008). "A defense of trivialism". PhD thesis, School of Philosophy, Anthropology, and Social Inquiry, The University of Melbourne.
Paul Kabay (2010). On the Plenitude of Truth. A Defense of Trivialism. Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-3-8383-5102-5.
Luis Estrada-González (2012) "Models of Possibilism and Trivialism", Logic and Logical Philosophy, Volume 21, 175–205
Frederick Kroon (2004). "Realism and Dialetheism". In Graham Priest, J. C. Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb. The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926517-6.
Paul Kabay (2010). Interpreting the divyadhvani: On Why the Digambara Sect Is Right about the Nature of the Kevalin. The Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association Conference
Bueno, O. V. (2007). "Troubles with Trivialism". Inquiry 50 (6): 655–667. doi:10.1080/00201740701698670. edit
Priest, G. (2000). "Could everything be true?". Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2): 189–195. doi:10.1080/00048400012349471. edit

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Straight from Wikipedia.

I just had to stare at this a while. We can have papers published about this, we really ought to be able to get papers published about Friendly AI subproblems.

My favorite part is at the very end.

[edit]See also

[edit]References

^ Graham Priest; John Woods (2007). "Paraconsistency and Dialetheism". The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic. Elsevier. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-444-51623-7.

[edit]Further reading

Paul Kabay (2008). "A defense of trivialism". PhD thesis, School of Philosophy, Anthropology, and Social Inquiry, The University of Melbourne.
Paul Kabay (2010). On the Plenitude of Truth. A Defense of Trivialism. Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-3-8383-5102-5.
Luis Estrada-González (2012) "Models of Possibilism and Trivialism", Logic and Logical Philosophy, Volume 21, 175–205
Frederick Kroon (2004). "Realism and Dialetheism". In Graham Priest, J. C. Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb. The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926517-6.
Paul Kabay (2010). Interpreting the divyadhvani: On Why the Digambara Sect Is Right about the Nature of the Kevalin. The Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association Conference
Bueno, O. V. (2007). "Troubles with Trivialism". Inquiry 50 (6): 655–667. doi:10.1080/00201740701698670. edit
Priest, G. (2000). "Could everything be true?". Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2): 189–195. doi:10.1080/00048400012349471. edit

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I wasn't positing this as a failure condition within trivialism, but of trivialism.

According to what I'm seeing here, a perfectly trivialist agent sees no difference between the truth of dying when shooting themselves in the head, the truth of not dying when shooting themselves in the head, and the truth of dying and not dying when being alive. No imaginable action can have any effect on the world, because everything is true, and so there's no real reason to do anything, including living. This too is true, as is the opposite, to said agent.

Basically, a trivialist assigns the null hypothesis over whether to care or not about the universe and themselves? Everything is true, but that doesn't consist in a reason to not act? Everything is true when it lets you write a paper and get grant money, but otherwise some things can safely be considered false for the purposes of living a normal life?

How convenient can question-begging get? Can I become a billionaire doing nothing but this? ("Yes, that's true." says the trivialist)

The way I see it, trivialism rejects logic and any kind of possibly imaginable rule for the purposes of writing philosophy papers, but conveniently ignores itself whenever it's time to go home or eat or live a perfectly normal life just like they would if some possible things were actually false.

Lots of strawman in there- especially with the assumption that trivialism implies meta-trivialism.

Doesn't the strict rationalist have trouble with the truth value of statements conditioned on false statements?

You are looking for a philosophy which tells you what the indicated course of action is. That means that trivialism is poorly suited for you.

You are looking for a philosophy because you want your philosophy to tell you what you should do. That means that trivialism is the perfect philosophy for you to practice.

Trivialism is not nihilism, and only a pe... (read more)

[cite_note-GabbayWoods2007-0] ^ Graham Priest; John Woods (2007). "Paraconsistency and Dialetheism". The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic. Elsevier. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-444-51623-7.

12

Things philosophers have debated

12

[edit]See also

[edit]References

[edit]Further reading

12

12

Things philosophers have debated

12

[edit]See also

[edit]References

[edit]Further reading

12