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.

[...] tools to determine which expected result to choose. Trivialism provides tools more well suited for deciding in the absence of information.

Whoa whoa whoa. Too much inferential distance. I don't even have the slightest remote idea of where to begin imagining how trivialism could possibly be used or imply anything even remotely like a tool for "choosing" anything.

Is there a "Learn Trivialism the Hard Way" thing somewhere that would help me bridge the gap between "X is true for all X" and actually choosing an action, a belief, anything at all? I'm obviously not going to gain much just from the wikipedia page, and googling doesn't seem to provide anything useful either.

It is going to rain and it is not going to rain.

Do you bring your umbrella?

Personally, I am not a trivialist, because there are no arguments which convince me that trivialism is superior to the blended philosophy that I haphazardly adhere to. That could be because I don't understand it well enough to internalize it, or it could be because trivialism isn't a robust philosophy. Either way, as long as you are trying to use information to make informed choices, you aren't well served by trivialism. Trivialism is best used to make trivial choices; in pure trivialism all choices are trivial. If you believe that a choice is nontrivial, you are not trivialist.

[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