= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TrE comments on The Rebuttal Repository - 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 (59)
What about rebuttals for positions which are popular on LessWrong? Are they also accepted or is this more like a "Somebody said something which is, by LW-consensus, wrong. How can I respond to them?" repository?
Say, if I had a good article, soundly arguing that LW-style MWI and quantum immortality (alternatively: Polyphasic sleep, paleo diets, etc.) is bullshit, would I be allowed to post it here, and would it stand a chance of being included?
There's no "being included", really. Post your article, and people will upvote it or not.
In general people on LessWrong enjoy thoughtful contrarianism. If you post links to rebuttals where people on LessWrong think that the article doesn't really provide thoughtful contrarianism, the post gets probably voted down. If people think it's thoughtful it probably gets voted up.
Since when is quantum immortality popular around here? We should have a wiki "List of Things Which Are And Are Not Popular On LW".
That's what the annual surveys are for (and indeed, something I use them for both on and off LW, and why it's such a disaster Yvain chickened out of adding the basilisk question).
I suspect it's better for us not to know what's popular here. It helps prevent groupthink.
Groupthinking often comes from an informal understanding about what's popular. I'm not sure that being ignorant about being explicitly able to say what's popular protects you from groupthink.
Arguably, quantum immortality comes with MWI (I wouldn't necessarily argue so but for example Everett might have done)
"Arguably" is not "LW accepts that argument". "I think your idea has horrible consequence blah, therefore you believe in blah" is merely invalid as a statement about what people's brains physically believe.
I was just pointing out why he might have thought LWers believe it. What happened was probably more like "This idea there is associated with blah. You believe this idea? Ah, you probably believe in blah as well"
To you think that provided anyone with information that he didn't already had before he read your post?
I actually remember reading a few articles and comments where this idea was being discussed and seriously considered at least. So, unless my memory fails me, quantum immortality was - at the time - at least somewhat popular among some LW readers. As an example for my question above, it fits.
The fact that people discuss an idea doesn't show that the idea is popular but that it's interesting.
We also discuss religion, two boxing and torture.
You mean religion, two-boxing and dust specks.
Sorry, what is the argument against quantum immortality?
I mean, beyond "it's unfalsifiable."
More to the point, it is a confusion. The thing that is called 'quantum immortality' is not immortality. Acting as if it is immortality (for example, by playing quantum roulettes) is typically an error in translating actual preferences from classical intuitions to account for a physics with quantum mechanics.
Anyone who says "I'm only going to die in (1 - (1/3^^^3)) of the measure therefore I'm immortal" is, to put it mildly, not being practical.
Oh, I see. I had thought of that, but I thought there was a physical argument being implied.
There have been quite a few of those in the monthly link posts on Yvain's blog.
I might make a compilation of those myself.
Quantum Immortality is not popular on lesswrong. Considering "quantum immortality" to be "immortality" is a confusion or an inflationary use of the term.
I should sincerely hope so.
I would be interested in seeing those included.