Comment author: wedrifid 08 September 2012 09:31:05AM 16 points [-]

The following quotes were heavily upvoted, but then turned out to be made by a Will Newsome sockpuppet who edited the quote afterward. The original comments have been banned. The quotes are as follows:

Defection too far. Ban Will.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 08 September 2012 09:15:43PM 0 points [-]

You are way too obsessed with symbolic gestures that simply amount to throwing fuel on the fire, chap.

Comment author: shminux 01 June 2012 04:57:10PM 1 point [-]

A literature review is an essential part of any serious publication. Shows that you did your homework and so gives you more credibility.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 01 June 2012 05:05:15PM *  1 point [-]

Granted. I didn't think it necessary because I don't think Schmidhuber's theory is a legitimate answer to the question, it's just a step on the way to finding an answer. Also, Burfoot's book doesn't include the relevant aspect of Schmidhuber's theory, which is the axiological aspect, i.e. the aspect pertaining to beauty and so on. A literature review of meta-ethics, on the other hand, would be more relevant, but wouldn't be necessary for the modest nature of this post. Existent meta-ethics will start needing referencing in Part II and beyond, though it doesn't look like Part II will show up on LessWrong.

Comment author: gwern 01 June 2012 04:41:10PM 1 point [-]

It's not irrelevant at least as background - in the sense that I suspect even a fair number of LWers are wondering why compression is supposed to be such an overarching paradigm it could cover all of science, much less extend further to meta-ethics and axiology.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 01 June 2012 04:43:40PM *  0 points [-]

Granted, and a good point. Schmidhuber's paper should be enough of an explanation, but Burfoot's book lends additional credibility to the notion, and of course gives us additional information on the subject.

The merits of Schmidhuber's formulation would be discussed in Part II, but it seems that this post won't be received well, so even if Part II will be posted elsewhere it probably won't appear on LessWrong. (ETA: Actually, Part II likely won't be put here in any case, as it might start to justify meta-ethical theism, and many LessWrong users will see the conclusion, meta-ethical theism, and infer by backwards-chaining that the arguments must be wrong even before seriously considering them. I don't wish to cause opprobrium on LessWrong, so Part II likely won't show up here—but I do wish to note that my silence shouldn't be taken as approval of such mind-killed epistemic habits. (The God question is, of course, extremely political.) That said, Part II might not get to God—I might try to structure the series such that God is introduced at the very beginning of Part III. Please note that Part I has nothing at all to do with God. )

Comment author: gwern 01 June 2012 04:24:04PM 3 points [-]

Try Burfoot's book? http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5466

Comment author: Arbitrarity 01 June 2012 04:35:49PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. Burfoot's book is mostly irrelevant to the post: it's about epistemology, whereas the post is about meta-ethics and axiology.

Comment author: shminux 01 June 2012 04:19:53PM 3 points [-]

Seems like this post is missing a decent summary/abstract.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 01 June 2012 04:34:27PM 2 points [-]

Added.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2010 09:40:54PM 6 points [-]

What should hardcore singulatarians do with their savings/investments? That's one I've struggled with, because the uncomfortable implication is that I shouldn't be putting my money in any one country, or in IRAs, and maybe I should take as much long-term, fixed dollar debt as I can.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 29 October 2010 11:57:21AM 4 points [-]

I should take as much long-term, fixed dollar debt as I can.

Get 50 credit cards in one day and go on to accrue as much debt as possible over the course of a few years. Give the credit card companies a temporary address and a temporary phone number such that you can lose their annoyance easily. Put half of your newfound free money into high yield investment opportunities such that you have a shot of paying it all back later. Use the other half to travel the world, become Enlightened, learn highly useful skills, and get yourself in a good position to make a lot of money or otherwise gain a lot of utility. Downsides: no mortgages, difficult to rent a house or apartment (but still not that difficult), if you want a new car you have to buy it with cash, some jobs will be harder to get (but it's not that big a deal), it might be difficult to move to a new country, it might disrupt your peace of mind, structural uncertainty, and goal distortion. I think a free 50,000USD or however much is worth those costs.

(I am not a financial advisor.)

Comment author: Kyre 02 September 2010 05:41:48AM 35 points [-]

Comic Quote Minus 37

-- Ryan Armand

Also a favourite.

Comment author: Arbitrarity 03 September 2010 08:10:47PM 1 point [-]

Beautiful.