Make sure to wear your rationalist sneakers when you go!

15 comments and -120 karma? Okay, at this point I may begin immune response against trolling (delete further comments, possibly past comments, as and when I get around to seeing that they were made).

I also remind everyone: Please do not respond at length to trolls, attention stimulates their reward centers.

Your work is wrong. To apply diagonal lemma the definition of phi must be a formula, since you write |- (which is not a formula in PA) I assume you meant it as shorthand for Godels Bew (which is), but you can't existentially quantify Bew like you did in line 3 of the definition.

Are you enjoying wasting your time on this website?

You have 15 comments and a grand total of -120 karma. That is a strong indication that you are doing something wrong. To save you some time: the standard response is "I'm being censored! You're an Eliezer-cult! All these downvotes are just because you're scared of the Truth!".

Please don't use it, because it is not true: e.g. two links you've already seen, people call Eliezer out on mistakes, naunced responses to "Yay for Eliezer/rationality/SI!"-type posts. Part of the reason I like LW is precisely because people do disagree, but there are almost never flame wars: the disagreement means that people actually think about what they believe and even change their minds!

What you are doing is not fitting into the community norms of discussion, like research and linking/referring to specific sources (anyone can say "I've done research!", but that doesn't mean that you have). (I'll pre-empt another common whinge: yes, in most cases, Wikipedia is an acceptible reference to use on LW).

The parent comment might not be particularly bad; but your history (and your username) puts you very close to "troll", and that makes the parent comment look like a pattern-matched response (rather than a genuine question) which is the reason I downvoted.

I was going to say "Come on LW! Obvious troll is obvious." but then I remembered this recent post...

This person appears to take pleasure in being downvoted consdering how much it is happening. Moreover, they aren't curious as to what norms they're violating to receive so much downvoting indicating some awareness. Their username is automatically controversial, but it can't even be a plausibly effective advocacy account for 9/11 conspiracy beliefs because then they would be polite the other rhetorical dimensions, so as to appear likable and be more effective at persuasion.

Admittedly, many of the beliefs they express are somewhat common, but they express too many of them too densely and with too much half-accurate background knowledge for it to be plausible. If you look at their other comments you'll see them on a wide variety of topics, all of them dumb. Generally stupidity goes with a lack of intellectual passion in weird areas, which displays itself as ignorance and a tendency towards silence. Plus, 911truther is responding line-by-line to too many responses - there's no sense of measured consideration or update delay, just the glee of someone who is being argued with by people who don't realize that in doing so they are feeding a troll.

So a kind of interesting question here is who is behind the troll account? (It is a pretty good job if you stop and think about it. I mean... who trolls on the subject of genetic algorithms with this much plausibility?)

But a more educational question is why are there so many responses, when we could have just downvoted to -10 and had one or two responses providing epistemic warnings to readers who might not understand, and then moved on? Is it the pleasure of scoring points on someone who is wrong? Is it a mistaken presumption of good faith because so many on LW write in good faith? I'm serious here. I'm honestly interested in LW's radar for trolling. Troll radar seems like an important epistemic skill that many of us lack, and I think there's something interesting in this lack.

You are self-identifying as a 9/11 "truther", which is signalling to us that you are a crank with a persecution complex. The fact that you subsequently verified delusions of persecution is just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

First, a general comment on your versions, sorry: you tend to use big words, scientific jargon, and too few examples.

Compare your pitch with the following (intentionally oversimplified) version:

"So, I hear you care about rationality. What's that about?"

It's about figuring out what you really want and getting it. If you are at a game, and it's really boring, should you walk out and waste what you paid for the tickets? If you apply for a position and don't get it, does it help to decide that you didn't really want it, anyway? If you are looking to buy a new car, what information should you take seriously? There are many pitfalls on the road to making a good decision; rationality is a systematic study of the ways to make better choices in life. Including figuring out what "better" really means for you.

Yes, you can get up votes here if you don't think cryonics will work. You got down voted for rejecting it out of hand without doing any research.

there is no evidence of it ever being done successfully.

There is evidence that cryonics preserves brain structure to some extent, which, coupled with the fact that people are brains, constitutes Bayesian evidence that cryonics suspensions performed up to this point were successful (that is, information-theoretic death didn't happen). What you require as evidence in this case might be a clear-cut demonstration of a cryonics patient getting revived. However, if we already knew how to revive people we wouldn't bother with cryosuspension in the first place. You can't, at this point in time, reasonably expect that kind of evidence, even if cryonics works perfectly.

Freezing things makes water expand and burst the fragile parts of your brain.

Correctly performed cryosuspension involves vitrification instead of freezing.

Mathematical theorems, axioms and definitions are encodable as flash cards.