Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Stabilizer 22 July 2017 07:42:05AM *  2 points [-]

Umm... 12000/25 is 480. Not 48. All the other numbers in the discrete human lifetimes section should be multiplied by ten. Not as impressive as you might've thought. Still, kinda impressive I suppose.

Comment author: Elo 22 July 2017 09:00:41AM 0 points [-]

Oh God I suck that's really bad of me. Will fix.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 21 July 2017 04:44:02PM *  0 points [-]

How do I contact a mod or site administrator on Lesswrong?

Comment author: Elo 21 July 2017 09:03:17PM 0 points [-]

Pm me

Comment author: Viliam 17 July 2017 02:42:44PM 0 points [-]

There seems to be a Less Wrong Slack. Maybe we could try making a new (private?) channel there. With rules like "to participate here, you have to regularly post what you actually do"; or perhaps uploading selfies of weightlifting and eating tofu (and polyamorous orgies)?

Comment author: Elo 19 July 2017 05:13:41AM 0 points [-]

You are welcome to have a channel. We already have a few channels for accountability and projects. The whole slack is us keeping track of each other

Comment author: Xianda_GAO 16 July 2017 11:42:24PM 2 points [-]

First thing I want to say is that I do not have a mathematics or philosophy degree. I come from an engineering background. I consider myself as a hobbyist rationalist. English is not my first language, so pease forgive me when I make grammar mistakes.

The reason I've come to LW is because I believe I have something of value to contribute to the discussion of the Sleeping Beauty Problem. I tried to get some feedback by posting on reddit, however maybe due to the length of it I get few responses. I find LW through google and the discussion here is much more in depth and rigorous. So I'm hoping to get some critiques on my idea.

My main argument is that in case of the sleeping beauty problem, agents free to communicate thus having identical information can still rightfully have different credence to the same proposition. This disagreement is purely caused by the difference in their perspective. And due to this perspective disagreement, SIA and SSA are both wrong because they are answering the question from an outside "selector" perspective which is different from beauty's answer. I concluded that the correct answer should be double-halving.

Because I'm new and cannot start a new discussion thread I'm posting the first part of my argument here see if anyone is interested. Also my complete argument can be found at www.sleepingbeautyproblem.com

Consider the following experiment:

Duplicating Beauty (DB)

Beauty falls asleep as usual. The experimenter tosses a fair coin before she wakes up. If the coin landed on T then a perfect copy of beauty will be produced. The copy is precise enough that she cannot tell if herself is old or new. If the coin landed on H then no copy will be made . The beauty(ies) will then be randomly put into two identical rooms. At this point another person, let's call him the Selector, randomly chooses one of the two rooms and enters. Suppose he saw a beauty in the chosen room. What should the credence for H be for the two of them?

For the Selector this is easy to calculate. Because he is twice more likely to see a beauty in the room if T, simple bayesian updating gives us his probability for H as 1/3.

For Beauty, her room has the same chance of being chosen (1/2) regardless if the coin landed on H or T. Therefore seeing the Selector gives her no new information about the coin toss. So her answer should be the same as in the original SBP. If she is a halfer 1/2, if she is a thirder 1/3.

This means the two of them would give different answers according to halfers and would give the same answer according to thirders. Notice here the Selector and Beauty can freely communicate however they want, they have the same information regarding the coin toss. So halving would give rise to a perspective disagreement even when both parties share the same information.

This perspective disagreement is something unusual (and against Aumann's Agreement Theorem), so it could be used as an evidence against halving thus supporting Thirdrism and SIA. I would show the problems of SIA in the another thought experiment. For now I want to argue that this disagreement has a logical reason.

Let's take a frequentist's approach and see what happens if the experiment is repeated, say 1000 times. For the Selector, this simply means someone else go through the potential cloning 1000 times and each time he would chooses a random room. On average there would be 500 H and T. He would see a beauty for all 500 times after T and see a beauty 250 times after H. Meaning out of the 750 times 1/3 of which would be H. Therefore he is correct in giving 1/3 as his answer.

For beauty a repetition simply means she goes through the experiment and wake up in a random room awaiting the Selector's choice again. So by her count, taking part in 1000 repetitions means she would recall 1000 coin tosses after waking up. In those 1000 coin tosses there should be about 500 of H and T each. She would see the Selector about 500 times with equal numbers after T or H. Therefore her answer of 1/2 is also correct from her perspective.

If we call the creation of a new beauty a "branch off", here we see that from Selector's perspective experiments from all branches are considered a repetition. Where as from Beauty's perspective only experiment from her own branch is counted as a repetition. This difference leads to the disagreement.

This disagreement can also be demonstrated by betting odds. In case of T, choosing any of the two rooms leads to the same observation for the Selector: he always sees a beauty and enters another bet. However, for the two beauties the Selector's choice leads to different observations: whether or not she can see him and enters another bet. So the Selector is twice more likely to enter a bet than any Beauty in case of T, giving them different betting odds respectively.

The above reasoning can be easily applied to original SBP. Conceptually it is just an experiment where its duration is divided into two parts by a memory wipe in case of T. The exact duration of the experiment, whether it is two days or a week or five years, is irrelevant. Therefore from beauty’s perspective to repeat the experiment means her subsequent awakenings need to be shorter to fit into her current awakening. For example, if in the first experiment the two possible awakenings happen on different days, then the in the next repetition the two possible awakening can happen on morning and afternoon of the current day. Further repetitions will keep dividing the available time. Theoretically it can be repeated indefinitely in the form of a supertask. By her count half of those repetitions would be H. Comparing this with an outsider who never experiences a memory wipe: all repetitions from those two days are equally valid repetitions. The disagreement pattern remains the same as in the DB case.

PS: Due to the length of it I'm breaking this thing into several parts. The next part would be a thought experiment countering SIA and Thirdism. Which I would post in a few days if anyone's interested.

Comment author: Elo 19 July 2017 05:05:04AM 0 points [-]

You should have karma to post now.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 16 July 2017 10:23:39PM 1 point [-]

I found a user named chron whose posts are all banned for no apparently reason. (If you use this link you can see their comments, but while looking at a post or comment they replied to, chron's comment will show as "deleted".) This user also shows up in the list of banned users. But there seems to be nothing wrong with this user's posts/comments that I can see. I tried searching for a comment explaining why this user was banned but couldn't find one. Is there a place that records the reason why each banned user was banned? If so, could someone please link it to the wiki page about moderation?

Comment author: Elo 19 July 2017 05:00:14AM *  1 point [-]

Chron was Eugine. Permanently banned for vote manipulation

Comment author: cousin_it 10 July 2017 06:33:53AM *  2 points [-]

I'm not just talking about reading books. Gym classes, art classes, job training, toastmasters, etc. Moreover I'm not sure any activity aimed at "stopping procrastination" is worthwhile. It's just inherently unreliable woo. Go down a level and find a class or collaboration group on the object level thing you want to do. You'll end up doing it so much that it becomes effortless.

Comment author: Elo 10 July 2017 06:52:26AM 0 points [-]

not sure any activity aimed at "stopping procrastination" is worthwhile

Strong disagreement.

Comment author: erratio 08 July 2017 09:55:31AM 0 points [-]

A related phenomenon: going to therapy versus going through a workbook on say, CBT, that teaches you all the theory and techniques. If you can self-hack from the workbook, all power to you, but a large portion of people need the accountability and the feedback from sitting in a room with another person going through workbook-type things together.

Comment author: Elo 08 July 2017 10:25:54AM 2 points [-]

I would suggest doing the obvious thing of doing some reading. As a lone wolf. Then doing the obvious thing and make an appointment.

Some of these obvious things are more obvious than others.

Comment author: Elo 08 July 2017 06:15:12AM 1 point [-]

It would appear that people disagree with you. I would caveat that lone wolf can be useful for some problems but useless for others. Don't go reinventing the wheel instead learn from other people's experiences.

Will write a post on it.

In response to Call to action
Comment author: lifelonglearner 07 July 2017 06:40:08PM 2 points [-]

I admittedly have not gone through the entire sequence. Major props, though, for sticking to a massive project and finally finishing it!

Any chance you'd be able to compile it in PDF format or other?

Comment author: Elo 08 July 2017 06:09:08AM 0 points [-]

Can do a pdf

Comment author: Screwtape 07 July 2017 04:00:08PM 3 points [-]

Content warning to follow for response to emotional appeal and for unrepentant animal execution.

I grew up on a small dairy farm (~40 head) that kept a handful of beef cattle. I spent more time with the dairy herd- they're a lot safer and the need to milk them every day means they get more of a farmhand's attention- but I've got some pretty fond memories of moving the beef cows from pasture to pasture. We named one Chief, who always pushed to be first in line, and another Teriyaki because of an odd auburn patch on his flank. When I was studying a part for a play, I used to balance on part of their fence while reciting my lines and Washington would usually mill around near me. He'd do that for anyone who was saying literally anything as long as your voice hadn't dropped, and sometimes when cleaning the stalls I'd make up stories to tell him. I never figured out why, but Washington's manure was always fairly compact and dry for a cow, which made mucking his stall much easier.

Washington was also the first animal larger than a mouse I ever killed. It's easier than you'd think. He didn't even realize something was wrong about being lead into a back room he'd never been in before, he just followed Chief in and then stood around placidly when we blocked the exit Chief had just left through. We got everything set up (a ton of animal can be dangerous if it just falls uncontrolled) and the adults offered to let me do it. Killing did not feel like some special magic or momentous occasion. The rest of the afternoon was educational even though I only watched, since you want to butcher and clean an animal as soon as you can. When we ate the first meal made out of Washington we included him in the prayer before the meal, mentioned our favourite stories about him and that we were glad he lived and glad he would fuel our lives and that he had made way for another creature to live the good life he did.

My opinion? Steak is delicious.

Chief and Teriyaki probably remembered Washington, but I highly doubt any of that knowledge passed on to his successor Glaucon even though there was overlap in their lives. Washington would be dead by now anyway- I was maybe twelve at the time we ate him- and what remains is the memories I have, and the shared family he has from nephews and so on being raised in the same way now. This is what I mean by patterns of thought- my great grandfather is dead, but since I've read his journal and heard stories about him from my father and grandmother, not every piece of him is gone. Odd phrases, family recipes, habits of thought, weird but cherished stories, these float alongside DNA down the generations. If every cow died tomorrow, humans would remember them for at least a thousand years. If every human died tomorrow, cows wouldn't remember us beyond a generation.

I'll read whatever you write in response to this, but I don't think there's much more to be gained from this conversation. You've moved from asking for perspectives to attempting to persuade via abstract means to attempting to persuade via emotional means, and while I don't begrudge you for that, I do think it's a sign neither of us are going to make any more headway.

Nice talking to you, and have a good day :)

Comment author: Elo 08 July 2017 06:06:17AM 0 points [-]

A great perspective from personal experience. Well recounted.

View more: Next