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

Comment author: khafra 09 April 2014 02:14:29PM 6 points [-]

Since one big problem with neural nets is their lack of analyzability, this geometric approach to deep learning neural networks seems probably useful.

In response to Polling Thread
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 07 April 2014 03:12:51PM 0 points [-]

Do you practice some form of vegetarism or other diet or consumption restriction and if yes which?

What are your reasons for follow this practice? Please answer only if you do follow a specific restriction. Do not use this poll to state your reason why you do not follow such restrictions. If you are interested in such please post a separate poll.

This practice improves my personal health

This practice benefits the overall population health

This practice improves human working/living conditions

This practice avoids harm to animals (and if applicable plants)

This practice allows to better feed more humans, reduce hunger and starvation

This practice helps preserve the environment/use it sustainably

This practice has economic benefits

This practice in encouraged in my social circles

This practice has other benefits (please elaborate in the comments)

Submitting...

Comment author: khafra 08 April 2014 11:18:33AM 1 point [-]

My "other" vote is alternate-day fasting, which I've been doing all year. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, but I feel like it's a dietary restriction, and benefits my health.

Comment author: wuncidunci 03 April 2014 08:26:53AM 5 points [-]

A video of the whole talk is available here.

Comment author: khafra 03 April 2014 01:53:38PM 4 points [-]

And his textbook on the new univalent foundations of mathematics in homotopy type theory is here.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 29 March 2014 09:56:15PM 2 points [-]

Homotopy type theory differs from ZFC in two ways. One way is that it, like ordinary type theory, is constructive and ZFC is not. The other is that it is based in homotopy theory. It is that latter property which makes it well suited for proofs in homotopy theory (and category theory). Most of the examples in slides you link to are about homotopy theory.

Tegmark is quite explicit that he has no measure and thus no prior. Switching foundations doesn't help.

Comment author: khafra 31 March 2014 11:24:30AM *  0 points [-]

It is that latter property which makes it well suited for proofs in homotopy theory (and category theory). Most of the examples in slides you link to are about homotopy theory.

I found a textbook after reading the slides, which may be clearer. I really don't think their mathematical aspirations are limited to homotopy theory, after reading the book's introduction--or even the small text blurb on the site:

Homotopy type theory offers a new “univalent” foundation of mathematics, in which a central role is played by Voevodsky’s univalence axiom and higher inductive types. The present book is intended as a first systematic exposition of the basics of univalent foundations, and a collection of examples of this new style of reasoning

Comment author: asr 28 March 2014 05:32:42PM 1 point [-]

the implied prior

Which implied prior? My understanding is that the problem with Multiverse theories is that we don't have a way to assign probability measures to the different possible universes, and therefore we cannot formulate an unambiguous prior distribution.

Comment author: khafra 28 March 2014 06:12:40PM -1 points [-]

Well, I don't really math; but the way I understand it, computable universe theory suggests Solomonoff's Universal prior, while the ZFC-based mathematical universe theory--being a superset of the computable--suggests a larger prior; thus weirder anthropic expectations. Unless you need to be computable to be a conscious observer, in which case we're back to SI.

Comment author: khafra 28 March 2014 04:43:26PM 1 point [-]

Apparently, founding mathematics on Homotopy Type Theory instead of ZFC makes automated proof checking much simpler and more elegant. Has anybody tried reformulating Max Tegmark's Level IV Multiverse using Homotopy Type Theory instead of sets to see if the implied prior fits our anthropic observations better?

Comment author: khafra 27 March 2014 11:43:09AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Skeptityke 14 March 2014 05:26:40AM 10 points [-]

I'd be quite cautious about seeking greater media coverage without a plan to deal with an "Eternal September" on Less Wrong.

Comment author: khafra 17 March 2014 01:58:45PM *  0 points [-]

Hacker News had a semi-joking strategy, "everyone post articles on Haskell internals*" on days following media exposure. It actually seemed to work pretty well--but I don't know if we have enough posting volume, and enough un-posted articles on the mathematical side of decision theory and anthropics to use a similar strategy.

*(edit: it was Erlang internals; gjm's memory is better than mine).

Comment author: kokotajlod 13 March 2014 01:41:07PM 2 points [-]

Good questions. I'll explain my reasoning:

Basically, after thinking about consciousness for a while, and personal identity, I've come to assign high probability to some sort of dualism/idealism being true. It might still be a sort of reductionist dualism, i.e. platonic computations.

So yes, the "platonic computation" theory would count. Do you think my original post ought to be revised given this information? I hope I haven't been misleading.

As for spacetime and causation: If I'm a platonic form, I'm not in spacetime, nor am I causally related to my body in any normal sense. It all depends on how we define causation, and I tend to be reductionist/eliminativist about causation.

Comment author: khafra 13 March 2014 03:33:10PM 0 points [-]

I hope I haven't been misleading.

I don't think you've been any more misleading than a dualist is pretty much required to be. The basic ambiguities of dualism do, of course, remain:

  1. How does the non-spacetime stuff produce subjective experience, when spacetime stuff can't?

  2. How does your subjective experience correlate with the environment and actions of your material body, just as if there were two-way causation going on? (even when you reduce causation to a Pearl-style net, or to the large-scale behavior of many individually time-reversible components, this question remains).

Comment author: fezziwig 10 March 2014 10:14:28PM *  9 points [-]

Quotes from the Screwtape Letters have not been terribly well-received in this thread. So, perversely, I decided I had to take a turn:

Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy...you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward into the Will. It is only in so far as they reach the will and are there embodied in habits that the virtues are really fatal to us.

-- The demon Screwtape, on how best to tempt a human being to destruction.

The existence of souls notwithstanding, Screwtape is clearly right: if you are charitable to almost everybody--except for those your see every day!--then you are not practicing the virtue of charity and are ill-served to imagine otherwise. You cannot fantasize good mental habits into being; they must be acted upon.

Comment author: khafra 13 March 2014 01:54:36PM 4 points [-]

Who does more good with their life--the person who contributes a large amount of money to efficient charities while avoiding the people nearby, or the person who ignores anyone more than 100 miles away while being nice to his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train?

View more: Next