= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CronoDAS comments on Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014 - 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 (242)
I recommend that you first read popular or semi-popular books written by experts in the field (Eliezer isn't one). One of the more recent and highly praised semi-popular books which addresses many points Eliezer tried to get across is ScottAaronson's Quantum Computing since Democritus. Free lecture notes are also available, but not as complete. The book has a complexity-theoretic bend, but you can skip the parts you find too boring or too hard. Other classic semi-popular QM books are also available, including the venerable Feynman lectures. That one explains amplitudes very well, but is light on various ontologies, like MWI.
While Aaronson's book is excellent, I suspect that someone who had trouble following Eliezer's posts will also have trouble following Aaronson's discussion of QM. It's not very neophyte-friendly.
Yeah, it requires effort, but, unlike Susskind's book, it has basically no calculus, just algebra and a tiny bit of some basic matrix addition and multiplication, as well as some very brief understanding of complex numbers, both of which can be learned in an afternoon by a person who has a solid grasp of precalc (grade 11-level math or so). Basically the same prereqs as for the QM sequence. Additionally, it touches on several very AGI-relevant points, like Godel incompleteness, anthropics, complexity and free will. And, while it talks favorably about MWI, it has none of the anti-rational MWI/Bayes propaganda and "eld science" bashing of the QM sequence.
Of course, it throws in some gratuitous anti-Bayesianism too - remember the chapter where anthropics (which no one agrees on or can formulate a sensible position on) refutes Bayesianism? Pick your poison...
I don't think he ever said anything about "refuting" Bayesianism, only that its application may depend on whether you believe SIA or SSA.
It is the ontology angle in which I am most interested, but I am not convinced that I can understand the ontology on even a basic level without understanding the math.