gelisam
185
30
gelisam has not written any posts yet.
gelisam has not written any posts yet.
When you make a data declaration like this, you are essentially postulating (A → □ A) and (□ A → A), for any formula A. This essentially removes the distinction between A (the formula A is "true") and □ A (the formula A is "provable"), meaning you are not working inside the modal logic you think you are working in. We made the same mistake in the /r/haskell thread at first.
It's an easy mistake to make, because the first rule of inference for provability logic is
⊢ A
------
⊢ □ A
So it looks like (A → □ A) should be a theorem, but notice that the left-hand side of the turnstile is empty. This... (read more)
I understand how that might have happened. Now that I am no longer a heroic volunteer saving my beloved website maiden, but just a potential contributor to an open source project, my motivation has dropped.
It is a strange inversion of effect. The issue list and instructions both make it easier for me to contribute, but since they reveal that the project is well organized, they also demotivate me because a well-organized project makes me feel like it doesn't need my help. This probably reveals more about my own psychology than about effective volunteer recruitment strategies, though.
After finding the source and the issue list, I found instructions which indicate that there is, after all, non-zero engineering resources for lesswrong development. Specifically, somebody is sorting the incoming issues into "issues for which contributions are welcome" versus "issues which we want to fix ourselves".
The path to becoming a volunteer contributor is now very clear.
Are you kidding? Sign me up as a volunteer polyglot programmer, then!
Although, my own eagerness to help makes me think that the problem might not be that you tried to ask for volunteers and didn't get any, but rather that you tried to work with volunteers and something else didn't work out.
I'm pretty sure I would come up with a reason to continue behaving as today. That's what I did when I discovered, to my horror, that good and bad were human interpretations and not universal mathematical imperatives. Or are you asking what the rational reaction should be?
Thanks for the suggestion. This is not, however, what I was looking for.
Cached thoughts explains that hearing a phrase might be enough for our brain to remember it as true, while genetic fallacy warns that the original cause of a belief is not as important as the sum-total of evidence for or against that belief.
I am not, however, looking for evidence that our past taints our beliefs. I have come to realize that finding the historical cause of a thought is a good first step towards getting rid of an unwanted thought, and I wanted to know whether this strategy was covered yet. If not... I'll accumulate a bit more evidence, and then maybe I'll write a post!
search for the historical causes of your thoughts, rather than their justifications.
Is there a standard name or LW article on the subject? I first stumbled upon the importance of that skill here, on this site, and I wish I knew more about it than just that one personal anecdote.
Great case study, in that studying my own reaction to your article has thought me a lot about my own decision making. And my conclusion is that reading a rationalist blog isn't sufficient to become rational!
I am thin, despite having very bad eating habits (according to conventional dietary wisdom). I had not heard of Taubes before. Specifically, I have never considered that conventional dietary wisdom could be incorrect; people say that I eat unhealthily, and I have simply taken their word for it. The fact that I continue to eat unhealthily has more to do with laziness than rationality.
How much have I shifted my beliefs now that I have read this article?... (read more)
could you link some of these stories, please? I am known to entertain utopian ideas from time to time, but if utopias really do hurt people, then I'd rather believe that they hurt people.
I agree! You are right, the formula "A → □ A" does not mean that all true statements are provable. It means that all "true" statements are "provable" :)
Discussing the math of provability is tricky, because there are many notions of truth and many notions of provability. There are true-in-the-real-world and provable-in-the-real-world, the notions we are trying to model. True-in-the-real-world does not imply provable-in-the-real-world, so ideally, we would like a model in which there are no rules to infer provable-in-the-model from true-in-the-model. Provability logic provides such a model: it uses "A" for true-in-the-model, and "□ A" for provable-in-the-model.
One extra level of... (read 359 more words →)