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

Comment author: maia 03 August 2012 04:03:06PM 4 points [-]

I would be interested in reading such a post.

Comment author: Torben 03 August 2012 04:46:53PM 1 point [-]

Ditto

Comment author: private_messaging 25 June 2012 07:07:19PM *  1 point [-]

http://www.economist.com/node/21525456 for the starter.

The arguments in favour of speculation, in general, rest on assumption of intelligent trading and diversity of strategies. The short term range, however, is entirely up to software tools, whose decisions are stupid and have identical systematic errors. I think the short term trading is going to go out with a bang first time there's any interesting software-level exploitation - either a direct hack or adoption of one bot whose decision theory makes non-trivial use of understanding of other instances of itself. Bang as in, a millisecond level bubbles and crashes followed by decision to roll it back and regulate or prohibit.

Comment author: Torben 27 June 2012 05:13:24PM -1 points [-]

Wow, sorry about the stupid autocorrects above.

As have been pointed out on e.g marginalrevolution.com, one reason HFT is so popular is because the minimum stock price increment is one cent. HFT might conceivably lose much of its allure if this lower bound is changed to, say, .01 cent.

I'm not convinced trading must be intelligent to provide beneficial information to the market. I'm also not convinced all HFT systems have identical systematic errors. Can you give some examples?

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 21 June 2012 10:35:07PM 3 points [-]

I am not an economist, nor do I play one on TV. My current studies (mostly maths, modelling and statistics) do contain a sizeable econ component, however, so I pay attention to these things.

I also have plenty of other things I could be doing with my time. Would you appreciate me talking at length about the pros and cons of financial transaction taxes?

Comment author: Torben 25 June 2012 05:32:48PM 0 points [-]

Yes, please!

Comment author: TimS 21 April 2012 08:21:54PM 0 points [-]

I see what you mean. But I thought "ripples of one wave affected the other wave" was the accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment. In other words, the double slit experiments prove the wave-particle duality. I wasn't aware that the wave-particle duality was considered evidence in favor of MWI.

Comment author: Torben 25 April 2012 12:34:42PM -1 points [-]

In Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch claims the double-split experiment is evidence of photons interfering with photons in other worlds.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 03 February 2012 06:36:48AM 0 points [-]

I'll start with the second question.

is there any experiment or argument or experience or anything that could convince you that green is not real in the way that you currently believe that it is?

That would amount to convincing me that the experience which is currently happening, is not currently happening; or that an experience which previously happened, did not actually happen.

is it your belief that green is an ontologically basic primitive? Or is green composed of other ontologically basic primitives that are outside the standard model?

The analysis of color as abstractly three-dimensional (e.g. hue, saturation, brightness) seems phenomenologically accurate to me. So as a first approximation to a phenomenological ontology of color, I say that there are regions of color, present to a conscious subject, within which these attributes vary.

If we want to go further, we have to tackle further questions, like what ontological category color belongs to. Is it a property of the conscious subject? Is it a property of a part of the conscious subject? Should we regard sensory continua as part of the perceiving subject, or as separate entities to which the subject has a relation? Should we regard color as a property of a visual region, or should we look at some of the philosophical attempts to collapse the distinction between object and property, and view "colored region" as the basic entity?

What I believe is that consciousness is not a collection of spatial parts. It has parts, but the binding relations are some other sort of relation, like "co-presence to the perceiving subject" or "proximity in the sensory manifolds". Since color only occurs within the context of some conscious experience, whether or not it's "ontologically basic" is going to require a lot more clarity about what's foundational and what's derivative in ontology, and about the ontological nature of the overall complex or unity or whatever it is, that is the experience as a whole (which in turn is still only going to be part of or an aspect of the total state of a self).

Clearly this isn't in the standard model of physics in any standard sense. But if the standard model can be expressed - for example, and only as an example, as an evolving tensor network of a particular sort - then it may be possible to specify an ontology beneath the tensor formalism, in which this complex ontological object, the conscious being, can be identified with one of the very high-dimensional tensor factors appearing in the theory.

The correct way to state the nature of color and its relationship to its context in consciousness is a very delicate question. We may need entirely new categories - by categories I mean classic ontological categories like substance, property, relation. Though there has already been, in the history of human thought, a lot of underrated conceptual invention which might turn out to be relevant.

Comment author: Torben 03 February 2012 06:07:03PM 5 points [-]

That would amount to convincing me that the experience which is currently happening, is not currently happening; or that an experience which previously happened, did not actually happen.

Why? What's wrong with an experience happening in another way than you imagine? This more than anything cries "crackpot" to me; the uncompromising attitude that your opponents' view must lead to absurdities. Like Christians arguing that without souls, atheists should go on killing sprees all the time.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 03 September 2011 08:29:30PM 1 point [-]

I keep running into problems with various versions of what I internally refer to as the "placebo paradox", and can't find a solution that doesn't lead to Regret Of Rationality. Simple example follows:

You have an illness from wich you'll either get better, or die. The probability of recovering is exactly half of what you estimate it to be due to the placebo effect/positive thinking. Before learning this you have 80% confidence in your recovery. Since you estimate 80%, your actual chance is 40% so you update to this. Since the estimate is now 40%, the actual chance is 20%, so you update to this. Then it's 10%, so you update to that. etc. Until both your estimated and actual chance of recovery are 0. then you die.

An irrational agent, on the other hand, upon learning this could self delude to 100% certainty of recovery, and have a 50% chance of actually recovering.

This is actually causing me real world problems, such as inability to use techniques based on positive thinking, and a lot of cognitive dissonance.

Another version of this problem features in HP:MoR, in the scene where harry is trying to influence the behaviour of dementors.

And to show this isn't JUST a quirk of human mind design, one can envision Omega setting up an isomorphic problem for any kind of AI.

Comment author: Torben 04 September 2011 04:34:01AM 3 points [-]

Your model assumes a constant effect in each iteration. Is this justified?

I would envisage a constant chance of recovery and an asymptotically declining estimate of recovery. It seems more realistic, but maybe it's just me?

Comment author: Torben 18 July 2011 08:04:08AM *  5 points [-]

Interesting post throughout, but don't you overplay your hand a bit here?

There's nothing that looks remotely like a goal in its programming, [...]

An IF-THEN piece of code comparing a measured RGB value to a threshold value for firing the laser would look at least remotely like a goal to my mind.

Comment author: AlexM 16 July 2011 07:40:39PM -1 points [-]

If China is moderate capitalism, one shudders how would extreme one looks like...

Comment author: Torben 17 July 2011 09:43:17AM *  -1 points [-]

Well, moderate as in they don't have rule of law etc. What I meant to say was that even this level of capitalism has worked wonders in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Contrary to decades of Western foreign aid.

Comment author: AlexM 16 July 2011 07:34:54PM 1 point [-]

I'm immensely skeptical of the notion that clever people are needed to tell dumb people what to do to achieve what they want

Every system ever devised consists of smart people telling the dumb ones what to do. Even in feudal society with hereditary rule, the thicker-than-brick kings were manipulated by smart barons and courtiers :-P

Caveat lector: I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now.

Generalization from fictional evidence

Comment author: Torben 17 July 2011 09:41:48AM *  3 points [-]

Every system ever devised consists of smart people telling the dumb ones what to do. Even in feudal society with hereditary rule, the thicker-than-brick kings were manipulated by smart barons and courtiers :-P

I'd venture capitalism less so than other systems. At least dumb people to some extent get what they want in capitalism. But of course, this is one aspect of nature that's very difficult to remedy and I worry that the cure is worse than the ailment

Caveat lector: I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now.

Generalization from fictional evidence

I meant it as an explanation of my current dismal perspective, not as evidence of anything. Sorry if it didn't come across right.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 July 2011 04:01:01PM 0 points [-]

I'm immensely skeptical of the notion that clever people are needed to tell dumb people what to do to achieve what they want; to "harness the capitalist system".

You 'harness the capitalist system' by participating in it, selling stuff, acquiring resources and exchanging those resources to achieve your goals. (And those goals can be selfish, altruistic or as arbitrary and nonsensical as you please.)

I see little hope for centralized harnessing by clever people

That is the position that I was "sure was not mine".

I say the marketplace and the economic engine behind it are out there, ready and waiting to be exploited by anyone with the ambition and competence to do so. It is a tool which can be used to translate whatever comparative advantage you have into the most efficient goal-maximisation that you can manage.

Comment author: Torben 16 July 2011 04:06:57PM 0 points [-]

Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

I took "harness the capitalist system and the dumb people's desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires" as a paternalistic statement.

View more: Next