= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
n%3=0 is distinguishable from n%3=1∨n%3=2. If A="n%3=0", B="n%3=1", and C="n%3=2", then an isomorphism f that maps B∨C to A must satisfy f(B∨C) = f(B)∨f(C) = A, which is impossible.
How can I argue without people online and not come out feeling bad?
I wont be the only one here who "wastes time" arguing about things they care about online (note: I am referring to web forums and things like subreddits, I am not including Less Wrong whose dynamic is completely different). It seems like something that is worth optimising in some direction.
The theory behind it is that one should expose themselves to counter-arguments allowing their claims to be attacked so they that have a chance to substantiate them or reject them upon realising they are mistaken.
In practice they generally follow a pattern that starts with people pointing out what they believe are mistakes then ignoring or intentionally misunderstanding the other party when he refutes or backs up claims.. and ends up with insults, patronising sarcastic remarks and nobody changing their mind about anything.
I don't particularly care about changing other peoples minds to make them agree with me (well, it would be great but I think it's practically impossible) so one thing I would like is for both people to at least end up feeling good.
So I'm interested in three things: Do other LWers recognize this pattern now that I have mentioned it? What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?
I understand, what I wrote was wrong. What if we use n%3=0 and ~(n%3=0) though?
In response to
Logical Uncertainty as Probability
A natural number n can be even or odd: i.e. n%2=0 or n%2=1.
If X = {n is natural number} then you showed that we can use P(n%2=0|X) + P(n%2=1|X) = 1 and P(n%2=0|X) = P(n%2=1|X) together to get P(n%2=0|X) = 1/2.
The same logic works for the three statements n%3=0,n%3=1,n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1|X) = P(n%3=2|X) = 1/3.
But then the same logic also works for the two indistinguishable statements n%3=0,n%3=1 \/ n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1 \/ n%3=2) = 1/2.
But 1/2 = 1/3 is a contradiction, so we find that axiom 3 leads to inconsistencies.
In response to
"Nice Guys Finish First" - Youtube Video of selected reading (by Dawkins) from The Selfish Gene
Isn't it just strategy stealing? Calling it tit-for-tat maybe focuses away from the fundamental reason why it wins.
In response to
Anyone have any questions for David Chalmers?
I'd like to ask him for an explanation of what the hard problem is and why it's an actual problem, in a way that I can understand it (without reference to undefinable things like "qualia" or "subjective experience"). Would probably have to discuss it in person with him and even then doubt either of us would get anywhere though.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Why isn't building a decision theory equivalent to building a whole AI from scratch?