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

Comment author: DittoDevolved 02 October 2016 04:13:27PM *  0 points [-]

Hi, new here.

I was wondering if I've interpreted this correctly:

'For a true Bayesian, it is impossible to seek evidence that confirms a theory. There is no possible plan you can devise, no clever strategy, no cunning device, by which you can legitimately expect your confidence in a fixed proposition to be higher (on average) than before. You can only ever seek evidence to test a theory, not to confirm it.'

Does this mean that it is impossible to prove the truth of a theory? Because the only evidence that can exist is evidence that falsifies the theory, or supports it?

For example, something people know about gravity and objects under it's influence, is that on Earth objects will accelerate at something like 9.81ms^-2. If we dropped a thousand different objects and observed their acceleration, and found it to be 9.81ms^-2, we would have a thousand pieces of evidence supporting the theory, and zero pieces to falsify the theory. We all believe that 9.81 is correct, and we teach that it is the truth, but we can never really know, because new evidence could someday appear that challenges the theory, correct?


Comment author: lucidfox 02 October 2016 10:44:01PM *  0 points [-]

It is correct that we can never find enough evidence to make our certainty of a theory to be exactly 1 (though we can get it very close to 1). If we were absolutely certain in a theory, then no amount of counterevidence, no matter how damning, could ever change our mind.

Comment author: lucidfox 24 November 2015 10:24:04AM 0 points [-]

I wonder: do the names Y'ha-nthlei, Y'not'ha-nthlei, and At'gra'len'ley mean anything? I assume Y'ha and Y'not'ha mean "you have" and "you don't have", but beyond that it just seems random.

In response to Decoherence
Comment author: Nyarpy 04 October 2012 08:30:12PM 3 points [-]

I've on my second reading of the Quantum Physics Sequence, and this struck me the first time as well, so now I've got to ask.

"The system at left is highly entangled—it's got a joint distribution that looks something like, 'There's two particles, and either they're both over here, or they're both over there.'"

Isn't this wrong, given the diagram? Wouldn't a description of this diagram be, "There are two particles, one over here and one over there?" Why wouldn't the diagram fold along the diagonal like in the "No Individual Particles" post? Wouldn't a diagram with a blob in the top-right and a blob in the lower-left better match the description given?

In response to comment by Nyarpy on Decoherence
Comment author: lucidfox 09 February 2013 09:02:03PM 2 points [-]

Indeed, if the two axes are the coordinates of the two particles, then one blob should be in the lower left and the other in the upper right. Seems Eliezer made a mistake with this diagram.

Comment author: Jack 17 August 2011 03:26:36AM 8 points [-]

In addition to everything thats already been said: when the median rationalist is still struggling to get a date the idea of winning popularity contests and infiltrating the domain of charismatic, glad-handing net-workers is preposterous.

Comment author: lucidfox 19 August 2011 04:40:56AM -1 points [-]

the median rationalist is still struggling to get a date

First, [citation needed].

Second, if it's true, perhaps one should look at oneself and ask why.

Comment author: lucidfox 19 August 2011 04:33:56AM *  0 points [-]

Just because I read the sequences doesn't mean I'm particularly likely to agree with any of them. Some, yes, but not all. Many of the statements you listed are controversial even on LW. If they were unanimously accepted here without further discussion, it would be a worrying sign.

Comment author: Pavitra 08 August 2011 03:51:17PM 2 points [-]

Gregory House is not credited for programmatically singing songs actually written and composed by humans.

His actor, Hugh Laurie, is credited for performing lines written by different humans. Why does Hugh Laurie deserve performing credit when Miku doesn't?

Comment author: lucidfox 13 August 2011 07:10:12PM 0 points [-]

Because Laurie is a person?

Comment author: komponisto 31 July 2011 03:58:33PM -1 points [-]

As someone who lives in the dangerous and uncharted part of the world called "outside the US', I prefer centimeters.

Feel free to use centimeters in your own examples, then. But you're not entitled to demand that US users do so.

Comment author: lucidfox 31 July 2011 08:11:28PM -1 points [-]

Where did I demand anything?

Comment author: Pavitra 30 July 2011 07:58:07PM 1 point [-]

I see no reason to think that galactic law will resemble ours. Extremely vague concepts like "intellectual property" are about as close of an analogy as we're likely to get.

Comment author: lucidfox 30 July 2011 08:12:53PM 0 points [-]

That was a joke on my part, but one warning against using overly general umbrella terms. Our copyright and patent laws developed as a result of certain historical circumstances, and it is entirely possible that a hypothetical alien civilization would treat sharing and distribution of ideas entirely differently and not resembling any of our historical precedents.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 July 2011 05:01:11PM 1 point [-]

I said "to the effect of".


Comment author: lucidfox 30 July 2011 05:05:45PM 0 points [-]

...I didn't? Drat. Sorry.

This is what I get for not looking over my own comments before I post them. I'll be more vigilant in the future.

Comment author: Al_Fin 27 December 2007 09:37:59AM 0 points [-]

Progress comes from the persons willing to be different and create a new approach to solving problems--or entire new industries. Conformity is the bane of the politically correct approach to "consensus." In a conformity environment the best one can hope for is a local optimum solution that will likely be outworn quickly as reality sets in.

The rush to premature consensus destroys the possibility of achieving a global optimum.

In Russia and China one can be shot for being different. In the west, one is merely ostracized and demonized.

Comment author: lucidfox 30 July 2011 05:04:32PM 5 points [-]

In Russia and China one can be shot for being different.

I think you might need to update your beliefs about Russia. The ones you seem to have are stuck in the 1930s-1940s.

View more: Next