Hmm. I upvoted your original comment but now it's back at 0. Is there some community norm against recommending music I don't know about or is there someone out there offended at all the naughty words?

(I mean, I get downvoting the original post because, well, that happens to everybody sometimes and the correct response is probably to sit on it for a week or two until you feel up to rewriting it, but frankly I can't follow the math anyway so what do I know.)

Edit: Also, "Reptile's Theme" needs moar dying Goron.

sit on it for a week or two until you feel up to rewriting it

(People also don't have a model of human psychology such that they realize it might be impossible for me to use motivational tactics like this, or they find it game theoretically advantageous to endorse a rule whereby even people who cannot make such concessions are to be punished for not making them anyway. Except it's hard for humans to be reflective about that kind of thing.)

Sorry, pedanterrific, don't mean to stuff your inbox.

1Will_Newsome9yThere's a community norm against most things I write (due to compounding perceptions of my not even trying to communicate with people and then getting frustrated when they don't understand things, among other things (like how my inability or unwillingness to communicate implies that I don't have anything to communicate and am just being masturbatory with all my hyper-abstract semi-technical talk)). It's not a strong one but strong enough such that my comments average about 1 to 3 less votes than they did like 6 months ago. As a result it would be unwise to generalize to other situations that don't involve me.

Resources for quantum decision theory research

by Will_Newsome 1 min read14th Sep 201112 comments

-11


(pdf) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9411/9411073v1.pdf
(pdf) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.0435v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0612185
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718
http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Multipartite_entanglement
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v100/i9/e090502
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1062335
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v7/i8/p2333_1

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5390026
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc,quant-ph/1/au:+oppenheim/0/1/0/all/0/1
(pdf) http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/articles/twowrongs-1783.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnum ber=5391327

I wrote out some paragraphs about how these are very incomplete and unordered but useful and blabla bla disclaimers and trading quantum information between superintelligences that'd seemingly been lost to the environment and trading between quantum branches and bla bla and how cosmological natural selection is relevant but Less Wrong ate it and I can't convince myself to rewrite it. So, here. My not-passive-agressive apologies for being schizotypal. The marginal cost of my efforts is probably higher than your model suggests, but I realize that nonetheless I'm promoting suboptimal norms for what does or doesn't get to count as a well-intentioned effort at communication. I accept all downvotes as justified.