You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

pragmatist comments on Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Tenoke 08 April 2014 11:11AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (242)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pragmatist 11 April 2014 05:17:46PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: shminux 11 April 2014 09:25:13PM *  -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 12 April 2014 01:33:12AM *  1 point [-]

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...

Comment author: shminux 12 April 2014 06:03:28PM -2 points [-]

I don't think he ever said anything about "refuting" Bayesianism, only that its application may depend on whether you believe SIA or SSA.