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.

Clarity comments on Open Thread - Aug 24 - Aug 30 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Elo 24 August 2015 08:14AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (318)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (318)

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

Comment author: Clarity 25 August 2015 11:40:54AM *  2 points [-]

I just tried this 'battleground god' thing and it told me:

'It is strange to say that God is a logical impossibility, but you don’t know whether God exists. If God is a logical impossibility, then surely She can’t exist, and so you know that She doesn’t exist.'

I don't get it. Why can't I be unsure about the truth value of something just because it's a logical impossibility? My understanding of logic isn't exhaustive.

Comment author: Clarity 27 August 2015 12:15:48AM 0 points [-]

Maybe it's because I'm not bayesian enough:

If I accepted that:

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. P(H | E) > P(H) if and only if P(H | ~E) < P(H). Absence of evidence may be very weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence nonetheless. (However, you may not be entitled to a particular kind of evidence.)

You cannot expect[2] that future evidence will sway you in a particular direction. "For every expectation of evidence, there is an equal and opposite expectation of counterevidence."

Then I may not hold my current attitude. But I don't see reason to believe those premises.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit