i thought the same, did someone ever replied?
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 (truly) have to perceive in order to confirm that interaction.
If you experiment and find out, after an honest analysis, that indeed that event was perceived, it would mean that the characteristics that you imagined the things have are indeed posesed by the things, if not they wouldn't interacted like you imagined. All of this in the case you know everything there is no know about something. One should never claim to have absolute truth, because if you are wrong you won't be able to be corrected. But of course, one can perfectly say that they have very strong reasons to believe something, because there is a history of evidence backing up that the world would work a certain way and no particular reason to believe that, for some reason, you what you believe is false and the evidence backing your false beliefs are invalid for some ??? reason. Obviously, if there is a certain anomaly that doesn't fit the model of how the world works, by all means it should be investigated. Of course, we are always discovering new information but there is a core body ok knowledge with a lot of evidence behind it.
After writing this, i think that right now i don't have the skills to put what you want to hear into words.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you so much!! This is what I didn't know I was looking for!
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 inspiration.
I understand that the truth-value of what he says is independent from whether he quotes sources or not, I just wanted to know if there are materials that expand specifically about the main idea behind what I quoted.
Also, thank you for the patience.
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.
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?