LESSWRONG
LW

All of biomachine's Comments + Replies

i thought the same, did someone ever replied?

1Brilliand6y

You need *at least* 26.9 bits. Since the boxes he talked about provide 2 bits each, you need 14 boxes to get *at least* 26.9 bits (13 boxes would only be 26 bits, not enough). 14 boxes happens to be 28 bits.

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine6y10

I admit my ignorance of physics. Still, the point stands: even though we wouldn't know that we were inside the Matrix, we would know how a part of it works: the "physics simulator", even though we have a "wrong" label for it, "reality" instead of "matrix simulation".

How? Interesting. How what? How it signals? You have concepts that represent how you think things are, inside your mind you imagine some way in which they would interact given the characteristics you think they have, and realize what you would (trul... (read more)

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine6y10

due to the nature of the matrix-issue, it seems that in such case we wouldn't be able to tell that we are in the matrix. at least until that which enables the characters to tell that they are in the matrix happens to you.

however, our succesful predictions still would be able to tell us something true: that inside the matrix, physical attributes of the simulation work a certain way.

I think that succesful prediction leads to correspondence because it signals that the way you think the world is, is the way in which the world actually is. Of course, one must critically analyze every concrete case, since it's easy to misinterpret data.

1TAG6y

Except that its not real physics. How?

Spaniard Lesswrongers, Unite!

biomachine6y10

Lamento llegar tarde a la fiesta, soy un estudiante de Derecho de Perú. Estoy haciendo algo de scouting para ver qué tanto se ha escrito sobre "Rationality" en español y por lo visto, poco. Por cierto, felicito la iniciativa de komponisto, revisé su página de Wordpress.

Recientemente he iniciado un proyecto que pretende hablar sobre racionalidad (lo llamo Teoría del conocimiento) y también sobre Derecho, eventualmente.

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine6y10

Why do you assume that we are inside the Matrix?

There is a criterion that tells you when correspondence has likely been achieved: Serialized experimental testing. Nothings is ever ABSOLUTELY EVER TRULY PROVEN, it's just that if you have a belief that can accurately precise future events (experiments), then that is a strong indicator that on some level you have knowledge about the true shape of reality.

1TAG6y

I don't assume that we are inside the matrix as a matter of fact. I note that if we were, hypothetically, science would work just as well at making predictions, whilst failing completely at identifying the nature of reality. That's how I am arguing that prediction and correspondence are not identical. That's a cached though for many people. The question is how does prediction lead to corresponence? Maybe not, but that's not the problem. If you could make 100% accurate predictions inside the matrix, you would still have the problem outlined above.

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine6y10

I sort of get the point. I remember once reading here that the reason it is a decent choice to use certain axioms also used in rationality and science is that those axioms have a pretty decent track record of helping to find out truth. A track record better than say...philosophy?

1TAG6y

How do you know? Science can make accurate predictions, and advise courses of action that work practically...but both of those would still be true inside the Matrix. If you think that truth is correspondence ,as rationalists are supposed to, then there is no way of proving that science is finding the truth, because there is no separate criterion that tells you correspondence has been achieved. Philosophy doesn't have the option of passing off one kind of truth for another...someone would notice.

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine7yΩ110

Thank you so much!! This is what I didn't know I was looking for!

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine7yΩ110

It may not be the sort of thing one would cite a source for, at least authoritatively .

Sorry, maybe I should clarify that I'm a law student and I'm used to reading texts with tons of footnotes and references per page, which serve to refer where to find extensive information about a particular idea, and also sometimes for making somewhat stupid ad verecundiam arguments.

I was just wondering if Yudkowsky came up with the idea behind the parragraph I quoted entirelly on his own (which is TOTALLY fine) or if he had some sources that served as inspirat... (read more)

5Said Achmiz7y

Ah, I see. As far as whether Eliezer came up with the idea on his own—as with most (though not all) of his ideas, the answer, as I understand it, is “sort of yes, sort of no”. To expand a bit: much of what Eliezer says is one or both of: (a) prefigured in the writings of other philosophers / mathematicians / etc., (b) directly inspired by some combination of things he’d read. However, the presentation, the focus, the emphasis, etc., are often novel, and the specifics may be a synthesis of multiple extant sources, etc. In this particular case, I do not recall offhand whether Eliezer ever mentioned a specific inspiration. But as far as there being other sources for this idea—they certainly exist. You may want to start with the SEP page on the “correspondence theory of truth”, and go from there, following references and so on. (In general, the SEP will serve well as your first port of call for finding detailed accounts of, and references about, ideas in philosophy.)

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine7yΩ110

thank. you. so. much.

i was wondering specifically about bibliography regarding the following:

" Since my expectations sometimes conflict with my subsequent experiences, I need different names for the thingies that determine my experimental predictions and the thingy that determines my experimental results. I call the former thingies 'beliefs', and the latter thingy 'reality'".

I suspect the most relevant reference towards it would be Feldman, Richard. “Naturalized Epistemology.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2012, edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Correct me if i'm wrong, also, if you know of a another reference it would be awesome.

2Said Achmiz7y

I confess I am not entirely clear on what it is that you’re looking for. The quoted comment does not seem to be the sort of thing that one would cite a source for… or am I misunderstanding your question?

The Useful Idea of Truth

biomachine7yΩ120

hello. it is not a mayor problem, but i just wanted to put it out there: i would love it if there were some bibliographical references which we could look into :)

best regards, i just found Less Wrong and it's amazing

edit1: i mean references as footnotes in every entry, although that may substract from the reading experience?

4Said Achmiz7y

The Bibliography of Eliezer’s book, Rationality: From AI to Zombies, may be of interest to you.