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

Comment author: somervta 18 June 2015 03:28:20PM *  1 point [-]

Formatting note: something seems to have deleted a couple of your time units:

I spent ~1500 working on genuinely original scientific research.

and

which subsumes the 100 old Poincare conjecture,

Comment author: [deleted] 05 June 2015 02:33:04PM 1 point [-]

If Turing oracles are not physically impossible, then we need an explanation for how physics implements an infinite tower of Turing oracle levels. Short of that, I'm going to believe Turing oracles are impossible.

even if we did that doesn't mean it's contradictory, not to the extent that using it you'll "mostly derive paradox theorems and contradictions".

If you start with something undecidable and build on it, you usually find that your results are even more undecidable (require a higher level of Turing oracle). There's also the AIT angle, which says that a true Turing oracle possesses infinite Kolmogorov complexity, and since Shannon entropy is the expected-value of Kolmogorov complexity, and Shannon entropy is closely related to physical entropy... we have strong reason to think that a Turing oracle violates basic thermodynamics.

Comment author: somervta 06 June 2015 10:28:19PM *  1 point [-]

Why do we need the full tower? Why couldn't it be the case that just one (or some other finite number) of the Turing Oracle levels are physically possible?

Comment author: [deleted] 05 June 2015 12:07:14AM *  0 points [-]

A hypercomputer is a computer that can deterministically decide the Halting Problem for a Turing machine in finite time. We already know that this is physically impossible.

And unfortunately, most of the FAI work I've seen under the assumption of having a hypercomputer tends to end up along the lines of, "We started by assuming we had a Turing Oracle, and proved that given a second-level Turing Oracle, we can implement UDT with blah blah blah."

Comment author: somervta 05 June 2015 12:41:51AM 1 point [-]

We don't know that it's physically impossible, although it does look that way, but even if we did that doesn't mean it's contradictory, not to the extent that using it you'll "mostly derive paradox theorems and contradictions".

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 03:12:38PM 0 points [-]

This is often what MIRI's "unbounded solutions" research is about: finding ways you could solve FAI if you had a hypercomputer.

Sorry to criticize out of the blue, but I think that's a very bad idea. To wit, "Assume a contradiction, prove False, and ex falso quodlibet." If you start by assuming a hypercomputer and reason mathematically from there, I think you'll mostly derive paradox theorems and contradictions.

Comment author: somervta 05 June 2015 12:01:22AM 1 point [-]

Why do you think that a hypercomputer is inherently contradictory?

Comment author: somervta 06 May 2015 11:39:48PM 1 point [-]

The LW Tumblr contingent has a Skype group.

Comment author: metatroll 01 April 2015 09:22:11PM 1 point [-]

You must be joking. The relevant test is "reading comprehension", and Less Wrong comprehensively failed. This essay says many things with which rationalists would agree, if they had been said differently. But some collective cognitive occlusion has apparently

notices the date

Oh. So you are joking. I guess you got me. looks away Well played, well played.

metatroll is the author of Confessions of a Failed Troll.

Comment author: somervta 02 April 2015 01:57:44PM 5 points [-]

The relevant test is 'Do I want to see more things like this on LW', and the answer is no, because I value clarity more than seeing things I would agree with did I understand them.

In response to Error margins
Comment author: somervta 21 March 2015 11:24:39AM 7 points [-]
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 20 March 2015 09:14:23AM 6 points [-]

I just realized that some people object to hedonistic utilitarianism (which I've traditionally favored) on the grounds that "pleasure" and "suffering" are meaningless and ill-defined concepts, whereas I tend to find preference utilitarianism absurd on the grounds that "preference" is a meaningless and ill-defined concept.

This seems to point to a difference in how people's motivational systems appear from the inside: maybe for some, "pleasure" is an obvious, atomic concept which they can constantly observe as driving their behavior, whereas others perceive their own actions as being driven more by something like a "preference" that seems like a coherent and obvious concept to them, and others still don't feel that either of these concepts is particularly central, causing them to disregard utilitarianism. (Of course one may also reject utilitarianism for other reasons.)

Comment author: somervta 20 March 2015 10:45:06AM 1 point [-]

Interestingly, both concepts seem worthwhile to me... and I mostly advocate a combination of hedonistic and preference utilitarianism.

Comment author: Val 14 March 2015 11:16:48PM 5 points [-]

I wonder if we'll ever see the "shorter, sadder" ending.

Comment author: somervta 15 March 2015 12:17:16AM 6 points [-]

Eliezer said this would just have been Harry antimatter-suiciding and Hermione waking up in a flaming crater.

Comment author: somervta 03 March 2015 04:28:40AM 3 points [-]

Is the novel content written by you, Eliezer, or others?

View more: Next