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

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 19 April 2012 06:31:08AM 7 points [-]

Mirror matter comes from "N=2" supersymmetry, where along with the usual particle and its superpartner, you have a mirror partner for both of those. Ordinary "N=1" supersymmetry doesn't have the mirrors. N=2 supersymmetry is of major interest mathematically, but it's difficult to get the standard model from an N=2 theory. But if you did, the mirror matter might be the dark matter. It's in my top ten of cool possibilities, but I can't say it's favored by Occam.

Comment author: loqi 16 June 2013 08:56:59PM 3 points [-]

I'd be interested in reading more about your top ten cool possibilities. They sound cool.

In response to Great Explanations
Comment author: pragmatist 01 November 2011 11:16:57PM 2 points [-]

Keynesian economics: Krugman, Baby-Sitting the Economy

Comment author: loqi 04 November 2011 08:11:37AM 2 points [-]

My takeaway: Sometimes people don't behave in aggregate the way we think they should. By replacing their money with money*k and convincing them it's still just money, we can manipulate their behavior by jiggling k.

And it apparently goes without saying that the coupon-issuer has a good way to distinguish "legitimate" reasons to cut back on going out. E.g., flu outbreak, new compelling indoor family activity, all the other stuff no one's even thought of yet, etc.

The Keynesian "key to enlightenment" is that we can cram a knob onto the economy and jack with it?

In response to Great Explanations
Comment author: mindspillage 02 November 2011 05:07:00AM 2 points [-]

The Cosmos TV series did a pretty brilliant job at the topics it covered.

Comment author: loqi 04 November 2011 06:25:35AM -1 points [-]

...as long as you don't mind listening to Sagan drone out "millions, and billions, and millions" for millions, and billions, and millions... basically number-novocaine delivered verbally.

And surely aliens are everywhere, we just haven't noticed them yet.

I tried watching Cosmos about a year ago, and quickly stopped. Is there a case to be made that it's worth soldiering through the awfulness?

Comment author: brazil84 21 October 2011 10:43:58AM 2 points [-]

•You didn't know the names of the people commenting.

I'm not sure that's the way to put it, but let me ask you this: How much stock do you put in the unsupported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?

•You have faith that you're more reliable than those people.

Please quote me where I made that assertion.

•You would lose your job if you weren't so great at seeing through bullshit.

Well I need to be decent at a minimum. But basically yeah. I assess cases day in and day out. That's a huge advantage. I know that I'm much better than I was 15 years ago, even though I was just as smart then as I am now.

•You have often failed to see through bullshit.

Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one's judgment. Do you seriously disagree?

Boy was Upton Sinclair ever right.

:shrug: I agree, but employment is sadly not the only motivator for self-deception. Let me ask you this:

Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?

Comment author: loqi 21 October 2011 05:17:35PM *  -1 points [-]

Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?

Yes. It's a combination of having little respect for the feelings of typically-wrong pseudonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete justifications for sloppy reasoning and draw snarky conclusions.

Comment author: brazil84 21 October 2011 12:39:23AM 1 point [-]

So why didn't you update on the opinions of Less Wrong posters?

It's a combination of having little respect for the opinions of anonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete evidence concerning real world disputes and draw reasonable conclusions. As an attorney I do this every day. In fact, my livelihood depends on doing it. All day long people call me up and spin tales and I have to guess at what happened in their case based on limited evidence. I've been wrong many times over the years, both in believing people who turned out to have been BSing me as well as being skeptical of people who turned out to have been telling the truth.

Comment author: loqi 21 October 2011 06:09:07AM 8 points [-]

So, to summarize why you didn't update:

  • You didn't know the names of the people commenting.
  • You have faith that you're more reliable than those people.
  • You would lose your job if you weren't so great at seeing through bullshit.
  • You have often failed to see through bullshit.

Boy was Upton Sinclair ever right.

Comment author: loqi 14 October 2011 07:23:33AM 12 points [-]

My inner Hanson asks me

So you've got a case of the Inner Hanson, eh? My estimation of your psychological fortitude is hereby incremented.

Comment author: LauWren 16 February 2011 02:48:41PM *  1 point [-]

We have additional information about researcher 2's experiment. If researcher 2 didn't look at the data before that point, then the procedures were the same, so the data should be treated the same.

If researcher 2 did check the data along the way--a reasonable enough assumption, given researcher 2's goal--then there were other tests which all came out below 60%. There was an upswing in successes at the end, and we know it. The other experiment may well have experienced the same thing, but in experiment 2, I don't have to look; I see it. Was there an important variable that we overlooked?

Of course, this is only due to extra information I happen to have about the latter. I haven't bothered to check whether something similar was there for the previous, because there wasn't anything to make it catch my attention. If I have the tools to do so, I would still like to treat them both the same--I want to see researcher 1's results lined up by time as well. If the upswing is repeated...well, that's funny.

Comment author: loqi 12 October 2011 05:24:05AM 0 points [-]

Good point, there is some ordering information leaked. This is consistent with identical likelihoods for both setups - learning which permutation of arguments we're feeding into a commutative operator (multiplication of likelihood ratios) doesn't tell us anything about its result.

In response to comment by Dorikka on Rationality Drugs
Comment author: [deleted] 01 October 2011 07:03:00PM 3 points [-]

I had a one-time trial and I'm planning to see my doctor for more as soon as I can.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Rationality Drugs
Comment author: loqi 03 October 2011 11:10:11PM 10 points [-]

If you don't mind sharing, how do you plan to do this? Is it as simple as "this controlled substance makes my life better, will you prescribe it for me?" Or are you "fortunate" enough to have a condition that warrants its prescription?

I ask because I've had similar experiences with Modafinil (my nickname for it is "executive lubricant"), and it is terribly frustrating to be stuck without a banned goods store.

Comment author: loqi 03 October 2011 09:28:41PM 2 points [-]

Hooray!

Comment author: ec429 24 September 2011 03:41:18AM *  1 point [-]

Paul Almond

To Minds, Substrate, Measure and Value Part 2: Extra Information About Substrate Dependence I make his Objection 9 and am not satisfied with his answer to it. I believe there is a directed graph (possibly cyclic) of mathematical structures containing simulations of other mathematical structures (where the causal relation proceeds from the simulated to the simulator), and I suspect that if we treat this graph as a Markov chain and find its invariant distribution, that this might then give us a statistical measure of the probability of being in each structure, without having to have a concept of a physical substrate which all other substrates eventually reduce to.

However, I'm not sure that any of this is essential to my OP claims; the measure I assign to structures for purposes of forecasting the future is a property of my map, not of the territory, and there needn't be a territorial measure of 'realness' attached to each structure, any more than there need be a boolean property of 'realness' attached to each structure. I note, though, that, being unable to explain why I find myself in an Everett branch in which experiments have confirmed the Born rule (even though in many worlds (without mangling) there should be a 'me' in a branch in which experiments have consistently confirmed the Equal Probabilities rule), I clearly do not have an intuitive grasp of probabilities in a possible-worlds or modal-realistic universe, so I may well be barking up the wrong giraffe.

EDIT: In part 3, Almond characterises the Strong AI Hypothesis thus:

A mind exists when the appropriate algorithm is being run on a physical system.

I characterise my own position on minds thus:

A mind exists when there is an appropriate algorithm, whether that algorithm is being run on a physical system or not. If the existence-of-mind inheres in the interpretative algorithm rather than the algorithm-that-might-be-run, then the interpretative algorithm is the appropriate one; but the mind still exists, whether the interpretative algorithm is being run on a physical system or not.

This is because the idea of a 'physical system' is an attachment to physical realism which I reject in the OP.

Comment author: loqi 25 September 2011 01:05:15AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for following up on Almond. Your statements align well with my intuition, but I admit heavy confusion on the topic.

View more: Next