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

Comment author: philh 02 December 2015 02:59:31PM 1 point [-]

So I can trade one currency for another, and then trade back, and the amount I now have in the first currency can be arbitrarily high. This doesn't feel like it particularly changes anything.

Comment author: Thomas 02 December 2015 05:33:42PM 0 points [-]

You are welcome!

Comment author: philh 02 December 2015 10:15:15AM 2 points [-]

Repeating my question from late in the previous thread:

It seems to me that if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in. But if you short, your payoffs are limited to the current price, and your losses could be arbitrarily big, until you run out of money.

Is this accurate? If so, it feels like an important asymmetry that I haven't absorbed from the "stock markets 101" type things that I've occasionally read. What effects does it have on markets, if any? (Running my mouth off, I'd speculate that it makes people less inclined to bet on a bubble popping, which in turn would prolong bubbles.) Are there symmetrical ways to bet a stock will rise/fall?

Comment author: Thomas 02 December 2015 10:41:39AM *  -1 points [-]

if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in

You never only buy, but at the same time you have traded your dollars, euros or whatever currency for that stock.

There is nothing like "buying" and "shorting" - it's always trading. Swapping two "currencies".

Comment author: Thomas 14 November 2015 08:35:20AM -1 points [-]

The idea, that both slits, the electrons, the detector and everything else near the experiment are influencing the outcome of the result - looks very good to me.

Comment author: turchin 29 October 2015 09:30:38AM -2 points [-]

It would also interesting to note that the program can't run and optimise itself simultaneously. Probably it need to copy its source code, edit it, than terminate itself and start the new code. Or edit only subagent which is not in use in current moment.

Comment author: Thomas 29 October 2015 10:53:12AM 0 points [-]

the program can't run and optimise itself simultaneously

I think, the hot updating is to consider as well.

Comment author: username2 14 October 2015 04:29:44AM 4 points [-]

To be fair, it seems that recently almost everyone can speak before a some kind of UN panel.

Comment author: Thomas 15 October 2015 09:22:34AM 1 point [-]

Which is good. The last thing I want is the UN to mess with AI. So, if it is just another UN panel, I don't have to worry.

Comment author: philh 13 October 2015 08:05:50PM 12 points [-]

I have an intuition that if we implemented universal basic income, the prices of necessities would rise to the point where people without other sources of income would still be in poverty. I assume there are UBI supporters who've spent more time thinking about that question than I have, and I'm interested in their responses.

(I have some thoughts myself on the general directions responses might take, but I haven't fleshed them out, and I might not care enough to do so.)

Comment author: Thomas 13 October 2015 08:48:21PM -3 points [-]

I have an intuition that if we implemented universal basic income, the prices of necessities would rise to the point where people without other sources of income would still be in poverty.

I think you are right.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 13 October 2015 07:51:40PM 0 points [-]

I don't give a damn about infinity. If it is doable, why not? But is it? That's the only question.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially given your earlier focus on whether infinity exists and whether using it in physics is akin to religion. I'm also not sure what "it" is in your sentence, but it seems to be the supertask in question. I'm not sure in that context what you mean by "doable."

Then, a supertask mixes the infinite set of naturals and we are witnessing "the irresistible force acting on an unmovable object". What the Hell will happen? Will we have finite numbers on the first 1000 places? We should, but bigger, no matter which will be.

The "irresistible force" is just an empty word. And so is "unmovable object". And so is "infinity" and so is "supertask".

I'm not at all sure what this means. Can you please stop using analogies can make a specific example of how to formalize this contradiction in ZFC?

The topic is also exercised here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=13&threadID=2278300&messageID=7498035

This seems to be essentially the same argument and it seems like the exact same problem: an assumption that an intuitive limit must exist. Limits don't always exist when you want them to, and we have a lot of theorems about when a point-wise limit makes sense. None of them apply here.

Comment author: Thomas 13 October 2015 08:45:49PM -3 points [-]

Just answer me a simple question.

How do the first 1000 naturals look like, after mixing supertask described above has finished its job,

You may say that this supertask is impossible.

You may say that there is no set of all naturals.

Whatever you think about it. Everything else is pretty redundant.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 13 October 2015 05:33:16PM 1 point [-]

There is an argument there, but it certainly is not one based on ZFC, since no axiom of set theory says anything about time or what can be accomplished in time.

Comment author: Thomas 13 October 2015 06:00:02PM -3 points [-]

So you say, ZFC has nothing to do with time? Time in physics is uncovered in ZFC?

Comment author: MrMind 13 October 2015 08:20:08AM 0 points [-]

Yes. It's not the Choice axiom which is problematic, but the infinity itself. So it doesn't mater if ZF or ZFC.

I doubt that any proof in FAI will use infinitary methods.

Comment author: Thomas 13 October 2015 09:41:15AM *  -3 points [-]

Physics is only good, when you expel all the infinities out of it.

Even more so for a subset of physics, such as FAI or molecular dynamics or something.

Well, some of us think that this should be applied to the mathematics itself.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 October 2015 08:41:10PM 1 point [-]

Wildberger's complaints are well known, and frankly not taking very seriously. The most positive thing one can say about it is that some of the ideas in his rational trignometry do have some interesting math behind them, but that's it. Pretty much no mathematican who has listened to what he has to say have taken any of it seriously.

Comment author: Thomas 13 October 2015 07:05:57AM -1 points [-]

Sure, I know he is not taken very seriously. That is his own point, too.

In the time of Carl Sagan, in the year 1986 or so, I became an anti Saganist. I realized that his million civilization in our galaxy alone is an utter bullshit. Most likely only one exists.

Every single astro-biologist or biologist would have said to a dissident like myself - you don't understand evolution, sire, it's mandatory!

20 years later, on this site, Rare Earth is a dominant position. Or at least - no aliens position.

On the National Geographic channel and elsewhere, you still listen "how previously unexpected number of Earth like planets will be detected".

I am not afraid of mathematicians more than of astrobiologists. Largely unimpressed.

View more: Next