= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'll be going!
In response to
Meetup : Melbourne social meetup
Hi! I'm from Sydney, but I'm visiting Melbourne this week and I keep seeing note about these regular Melbourne meetups. So I might head down there. I have dinner with my family around 7, so I'm not sure what time I can get there. Hope to meet some of you there!
In response to
Drawing Less Wrong: An Introduction
Wow, sounds great. I'm really looking forward to this :)
In response to
A Rational Approach to Fashion
Why is this on LessWrong? We already know that looking good helps in many situations. I can find fashion advice by typing "fashion advice"* into Google. Is any kind of post appropriate on LessWrong if I prefix the title with "A rational approach to..."?
*Or "fashion advice for men" if you don't want clothing that's aimed at women.
It helped teach me a few valuable thought-processes which should help optimise my social life. I'm glad it's here.
In response to
Expecting Beauty
Michael: do you think we should decide that the simplest formula is the best?
But then how do we define simple? What do you mean by 'communicating' and 'bits'? Do we assign arbitrary complexity points to the operators? What would be the relative complexity of a power operation as compared to a multiplication? And what of my pet operator I just invented that lets me replace "(n - 1) * (n - 2) * (n - 3) * (n - 4) * (n - 5)" with "5##" or something similarly silly?
Ask yourself, how can we be sure we have the simplest explanation? What is the simplest formula for the sequence {1, 2, ...}? Is it the powers of two or the natural numbers? What about the sequence {1, ...}? Is it really sensible to ask such questions?
I think you could use Kolgomorov complexity to define simple, for these purposes. That way replacing your formula with "5##" wouldn't make it any simpler, because the machine would still have to execute all those multiplicative operations.
How can we be sure we have the simplest explanation? We can't be sure, because new data could come in to make us change our minds. But given a finite amount like {1, 2, ...} we can still weight possible formulae by Kogomorov complexity and prefer the simpler hypothesis.
I think natural numbers is simpler in this case, because n is simpler to calculate than 2^n. As for {1, ...} I don't think we have enough information to locate a hypothesis.
I'm uncertain about what I've said, so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything.
In response to
Mini-camp on Rationality, Awesomeness, and Existential Risk (May 28 through June 4, 2011)
When you say you'll cover the cost of flights, does this include international trips?
In response to
NEW TIME: Sydney Less Wrong meetup, 23/4, 3PM
Working until 3:30 that Saturday :(
We're now meeting at 3 instead. Will you be able to make it?
In response to
NEW TIME: Sydney Less Wrong meetup, 23/4, 3PM
Considering the interest, I'm Pre-committing to showing up at around 3:30 - 4, staying till 6.
We're now meeting at 3. See you then!
Sure. Just post here what you decide. I'll check this page before turning up.
We're now meeting at 3:00. See you tomorrow!
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I went and had fun! I'll be going to them every week, in the absence of other plans.