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

Comment author: g_pepper 02 August 2017 03:07:01AM 2 points [-]

Thomas's comment seems quite sensible to me.

It seems to me that Dyson's argument was that as temperature falls, so does the energy required for computing. So, the point in time when we run out of available energy to compute diverges. But, Thomas reasonably points out (I think - correct me if I am misrepresenting you Thomas) that as temperature falls and the energy used for computing falls, so does the speed of computation, and so the amount of computation that can be performed converges, even if we were to compute forever.

Also, isn't Thomas correct that Planck's constant puts an absolute minimum on the amount of energy required for computation?

These seem like perfectly reasonable responses to Dyson's comments. What am I missing?

Comment author: alicey 10 August 2017 02:56:30AM 0 points [-]

you are missing the concept of blather

Comment author: Thomas 01 August 2017 10:35:23PM 2 points [-]

Even if a computation goes forever, it doesn't necessarily perform more than a certain finite amount of computation. And when we are below the Planck's temperature scale, the further cooling is useless for your heat driven machines. Life stops.

I believe that there is a lot of computing down there in the coldness around the absolute zero. But not an infinite amount.

Comment author: alicey 02 August 2017 01:14:10AM 0 points [-]


In response to comment by alicey on Final Words
Comment author: TobyBartels 25 May 2016 03:41:39AM 1 point [-]

Voted up this comment, for reasons that should be self-evident.

In response to comment by TobyBartels on Final Words
Comment author: alicey 05 July 2016 07:46:42PM 2 points [-]

Voted up this comment, for kabbalistic reasons.

In response to comment by alicey on Lawful Creativity
Comment author: taryneast 02 March 2016 10:30:52PM 0 points [-]

As explained it doesn't fit the definition given: playing house does not have "definite rules" and does not have a defined beginning/end.

Comment author: alicey 04 March 2016 11:59:37PM *  1 point [-]

okay, playing house isn't actually a coherent category. there are ways to play house that have carse-jargon-“definite rules” and have a carse-jargon-defined-beginning&end, and there are ways to play house that don't. most instances of playing house are of the former type, likely including your experiences.

carse uses words in weird ways.

In response to comment by Paul5 on Lawful Creativity
Comment author: taryneast 04 January 2011 11:59:39AM *  3 points [-]

It makes no sense to talk about optimizing on an infinite game.

If I get the difference between finite and infinite games... then I'm afraid I disagree.

Take, for example, the difference between "baseball" and "playing house".

Baseball is clearly a finite game - it makes sense to talk about a "winner" of baseball. Contrariwise, it makes no sense to talk about a "winner" of playing house - so I'd conclude that the latter is an infinite game.

From my own experience of "playing house" as a girl, I'd say there are definite candidates for optimisation - especially when playing with others. The most common (in my experience) being to optimise the average happiness level of each of the players (by sharing, avoiding or resolving disagreements etc).

Even if nobody "wins" you can still "play better" against this optimisation target.

Comment author: alicey 25 February 2016 06:31:47AM 0 points [-]

carse uses words in weird ways. in carse jargon, playing house is a finite game.

Comment author: dvasya 18 February 2016 12:07:23AM -2 points [-]

Losing a typical EA ... decreasing ~1000 utilons to ~3.5, so a ~28500% reduction per person lost.

You seem to be exaggerating a bit here: that's a 99.65% reduction. Hope it's the only inaccuracy in your estimates!

Comment author: alicey 18 February 2016 12:16:40AM 1 point [-]

tomayto tomahto

Comment author: Vulture 11 September 2014 12:59:25AM *  8 points [-]

In retrospect, I'm kind of glad that my plan to make a Quirrell-tulpa never got off the ground.

Comment author: alicey 15 January 2016 01:47:09AM 0 points [-]

afaict the quirrell tulpa is one of the more common types of tulpas. if you have one, do not use it. it is secretly voldemort and will destroy your soul.

Comment author: alicey 10 November 2015 11:40:17AM 1 point [-]

When you say “a science-fiction story”, I am curious if it ever was finished. Is it HPMOR?

Comment author: alicey 17 August 2015 03:39:16PM *  4 points [-]

Reading this was a bit annoying:

Only one statement about a hand of cards is true:

  • There is a King or Ace or both.

  • There is a Queen or Ace or both.

Which is more likely, King or Ace?

... The majority of people respond that the Ace is more likely to occur, but this is logically incorrect.

It is just communicating badly https://xkcd.com/169/ . In a common parse, Ace is more likely to occur. It would be more likely to be parsed as you intended if you had said

Only one of the following premises is true about a particular hand of cards:

(like you did on the next question!)

In response to comment by hosford42 on An Alien God
Comment author: hosford42 11 August 2015 10:18:14PM 2 points [-]

My first comment ever on this site promptly gets downvoted without explanation. If you disagree with something I said, at least speak up and say why.

In response to comment by hosford42 on An Alien God
Comment author: alicey 12 August 2015 12:19:18AM 1 point [-]

you're not really wrong but you're missing the point

View more: Next