[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

I feel like some questions could use a way to provide an explanation for the answer, or the "other" option. Like, for example, my answer for the immigration question would be "no restriction on immigration for educated and culturally compatible people, extreme restrictions for non-educated and culturally incompatible ones", but I ended up putting in the "no options" one, as it was more like the average between "no restrictions" and "strong restrictions"

Can anyone recommend good books on teaching (preferrably not kids, but adults) ?

First everything in any practical simulation is always and everywhere an approximation. An exact method is an enormously stupid idea - a huge waste of resources.

We haven't seen anything like evidence that our laws of physics are only approximations at all. If we're in a simulation, this implies that with high probability either a) the laws of physics in the parent universe are not our own laws of physics (in which case the entire idea of ancestor simulations fails) or b) they are engaging in an extremely detailed simulation.

The optimal techniques only simulate down to the quantum level when a simulated scientist/observer actually does a quantum experiment. In an optimal simulated world, stuff literally only exists to the extent observers are observing or thinking about it.

And our simulating entities would be able to tell that someone was doing a deliberate experiment how?

The limits of optimal approximation appear to be linear in observer complexity - using output sensitive algorithms.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you expand?

The upshot of these results is that one cannot make a detailed simulation of an object without using at least much resources as the object itself.

Ultra-detailed accurate simulations are only high value for quantum level phenomena. Once you have a good model of the quantum scale, you can percolate those results up to improve your nano-scale models, and then your micro-scale models, and then your milli-meter scale models, and so on.

Only up to a point. It is going to be for example very difficult to percolate up simulations from micro to milimeter for many issues, and the less detail in a simulation, the more likely that someone notices a statistical artifact in weakly simulated data.

We already can simulate entire planets using the tiny resources of today's machines. I myself have created several SOTA real-time planetary renderers back in the day.

Again, the statistical artifact problem comes up, especially when there are extremely subtle issues going on, such as the different (potential) behavior of neutrinos.

Your basic point that I may be overestimating the difficulty of simulations may be valid; since simulations don't explain the Great Filter for other reasons I discussed, this causes an update in the direction of us being in a simulation but doesn't really help explain the Great Filter much at all.

I feel there are some significant differences between drawing Mohammed and showing the British person a picture of the salmon:

• In case of Britain affected with the salmon ailment, it is not actually necessary to stop depicting salmon. For example, if you are a proud owner of a salmon-fisher’s blog, it is sufficient to put up a “CONTAINS SALMON” warning on the front page to prevent some unlucky Brit from wandering inside and getting a jolt. We do not stop selling peanut products because some people are allergic to them and might actually die from consuming those – we just put a highly visible “CONTAINS NUTS” label on the packaging. However, if you have a religious issue discussion blog that may contain some Mohammed art, posting a “CONTAINS PICTURES OF MOHHAMED” warning on the front page will only attract the kind of Muslims that are particularly averse to Mohammed art.

• Another interesting point to consider is that being atheist, I do not have a duty or commandment not to draw a picture of Mohammed and neither do Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Hindus. Technically, if your commandments do not forbid it you are not committing a sacrilege. Now, waving a Mohammed pic in the Muslims’ face would be definitely a dick move, but publishing it in your blog/journal/whatever other media that a Muslim would have to actively seek out in order to be exposed should be ok.

• A tit-for-tat argument – suppose that while Britain was affected by salmon aversion the rest of the world was struck by an aversion to cat pictures (the horror! Oh, the fluffy horror!). Now, if the British demand that we get rid of our salmon pics but keep flashing the cat pics all over the place, would you still feel that it is a dick move to keep your salmon? Getting back to the Mohammed issue, this is exactly what we see – the same Muslim groups that react most aggressively to the Mohammed pics are known for damaging and destroying various objects that hold cultural and religious value to non-Muslims. Is it right to cooperate when your opponent is known for defecting?

However, I do feel that my thinking might be influenced by a tribal-rivalry bias against Muslems. If you find anything of that sort – feel free to dig in.

I agree, but these religions has endured for centuries, unlike your other examples. I dont argue for christianity,( why do you presume that?) I mean that EY oversimplifies religious beliefs in general.

Nice review! I am actually reading through this one now. I've always felt like set theory is one of those one-point wonders of science - digging in deeply doesn't give you much benefit, but the basic stuff is the stuff you are going to run into pretty much everywhere. Guess I'll have to see what I think after I read all the way through.

More than anything, the grip of religion is sustained by people just-not-thinking-about the real weak points of their religion. I don't think this is a matter of training, but a matter of instinct. People don't think about the real weak points of their beliefs for the same reason they don't touch an oven's red-hot burners; it's painful.

I think that Eliezer oversimplifies religious beliefs. People who have witnessed terrible things have kept their faith. People who have witnessed their loved ones being killed and tortured still have clung on to their religion. These people have had all the reason in the world to doubt the existence of a benevolent god. They surely have thought of the weak points, when you find yourself being tortured, you don´t keep your faith just because you want an explanation for everything. And afterward I find it hard to believe they just reasoned away it all. My point is that sheer idiocy probably didn´t convince all of those who have suffered, something else must have fooled them, or a lot of things combined.

• I was able to evaluate some of my behaviors in a more rational fashion, from a better cost/benefit viewpoint, and I was able to cognitively model and evaluate my behavior better, which was a significant help in getting rid of some unhealthy habits.
• LessWrong helped a lot with my self-education too, being a source of inspiration and motivation and pointing me towards some cool educational resources I didn’t know about previously.
• Found quite a lot of interesting fiction to read through LessWrong, too.
• Useful advice on combating akrasia.
• Helped me to systematize what I know about philosophy.

Overall, I feel that LessWrong made a noticeably significant positive impact on my life.

I wonder if any of the meetups set up a broadcast via Skype or a webinar of some sorts - I would be very curious to listen in on this one, if there is such an opportunity.