Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is finally coming to a conclusion! To celebrate, we invite all Canberran Less Wrongers to our wrap-up party. (: Snacks will be provided.
Make sure you read all the new chapters so that we can have some interesting discussions.
Note that this is on Sunday instead of Saturday (π day), and there will be no LW meeting on Saturday.
Often we come across various pieces of technology - such as a neat app or website - that help us accomplish goals that we are trying to achieve. In this meetup, we will discuss any such tools that we have come across (so if you can, please come prepared with a few in mind), and see if others have ideas that we might find useful. As always, vegan snacks will be provided.
General meetup info:
For this meet up, we want to talk about our favorite LW posts. Please pick one (or more) posts from the 'How to Actually Change Your Mind' sequence that you found interesting. Tell us why you liked it and possibly lead into a group discussion.
Feel free to pick a post from another sequence if you want and it its totally fine if you haven't read any of the sequences, you can still come and discuss other peoples favourite posts. It would also be awesome if you could post your favourite post on the Facebook event page so everyone has the chance to read them before hand.
As usual Vegan snacks will be provided. Hope to see you there!
General meetup info:
I will be giving a brief talk about what does and doesn't make us happier in the long run, introducing the idea of the 'hedonic treadmill'. Discussion will (hopefully) ensue afterwards. Vegan snacks will be provided.
General meetup info:
The amount of suffering introduced by factory-farming is entirely negligible compared to the amount of wild-animal suffering that's been taking place as long as life has existed, continues to take place, and will continue to take place unless we cause a wholesale extinction of the Earth's biosphere.
Unless you're prepared to eradicate animal life, no personal choice you ever make will have a meaningful impact on the amount of suffering in the universe.
Your second sentence doesn't follow from the first. Just because there is an enormous amount of suffering in the world doesn't mean that you can't alleviate a meaningful amount. The only way this is true is if by "meaningful" you mean as a proportion of the total amount of suffering, which doesn't really make sense - the fact that others are suffering doesn't make a good act any less good.
Ohhh, thanks. That explains it. I feel like there should exist things for which provable(not(p)), but I can't think of any offhand, so that'll do for now.
To answer the below: I'm not saying that provable(X or notX) implies provable (not X). I'm saying...I'll just put it in lemma form(P(x) means provable(x):
If P( if x then Q) AND P(if not x then Q)
Then P(not x or Q) and P(x or Q): by rules of if then
Then P( (X and not X) or Q): by rules of distribution
Then P(Q): Rules of or statements
So my proof structure is as follows: Prove that both Provable(P) and not Provable(P) imply provable(P). Then, by the above lemma, Provable(P). I don't need to prove Provable(not(Provable(P))), that's not required by the lemma. All I need to prove is that the logical operations that lead from Not(provable(P))) to Provable(P)) are truth and provability preserving
Breaking my no-comment commitment because I think I might know what you were thinking that I didn't realise that you were thinking (won't comment after this though): if you start with (provable(provable(P)) or provable(not(provable(P)))), then you can get your desired result, and indeed, provable(provable(P) or not(provable(P))). However, provable(Q or not(Q)) does not imply provable(Q) or provable(not(Q)), since there are undecideable questions in PA.
To answer the below: I'm not saying that provable(X or notX) implies provable (not X). I'm saying...I'll just put it in lemma form(P(x) means provable(x):
If P( if x then Q) AND P(if not x then Q)
Then P(not x or Q) and P(x or Q): by rules of if then
Then P( (X and not X) or Q): by rules of distribution
Then P(Q): Rules of or statements
So my proof structure is as follows: Prove that both Provable(P) and not Provable(P) imply provable(P). Then, by the above lemma, Provable(P). I don't need to prove Provable(not(Provable(P))), that's not required by the lemma. All I need to prove is that the logical operations that lead from Not(provable(P))) to Provable(P)) are truth and provability preserving
I agree that if you could prove that (if not(provable(P)) then provable(P)), then you could prove provable(P). That being said, I don't think that you can actually prove (if not(provable(P)) then provable(P)). A few times in this thread, I've shown what I think the problem is with your attempted proof - the second half of step 3 does not follow from the first half. You are assuming X, proving Y, then concluding provable(Y), which is false, because X itself might not have been provable. I am really tired of this thread, and will no longer comment.
is x or not x provable? Then use my proof structure again.
The whole point of this discussion is that I don't think that your proof structure is valid. To be honest, I'm not sure where your confusion lies here. Do you think that all statements that are true in PA are provable in PA? If not, how are you deriving provable(if x then q) from (if x then q)?
In regards to your above comment, just because you have provable(x or not(x)) doesn't mean you have provable(not(x)), which is what you need to deduce provable(if x then q).
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Canberra HPMOR Wrap Party:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1799129743644509/
http://lesswrong.com/meetups/1ay