Bob Baker

This is a summary of a paper that I found open in a browser tab; I don't recall where I came across it. I think it's a nice paper, but it's also 63 pages long and seemed worth a synopsis for those who wouldn't otherwise tackle it.

Scott concluded in For, then Against, High-saturated-fat diets that the obesity crisis seemed to imply one of three answers:

That weight less is really hard and people in previous centuries had really hard lives and that's why there was so little obesity back then.
That it's “being caused by plastics or antibiotics affecting the microbiome or something like that”.
That there is hysteresis—once you become overweight it's semi-permanent.

This paper... (read 1336 more words →)

102

Replying toBook review: Sleight of Mind (Matt Cook)

Why not solve the paradox by dropping the expectation that infinitty works like finity? (And how does Cook solve the paradox?)

The book "solves" the paradox by stating that, yes, you can add an infinite number of guests to Hilbert's hotel, even when it was full to begin with. Again, it's only stating surprising results and if Hilbert considered it sufficiently surprising to articulate then I'm not going to argue!

It's not that infinity doesn't work, it's that it struck me that it's barren of interesting structure. Yes, infinity + infinity is still infinity. And there's an unlimited number of infinities that are sufficiently ill-behaved that they don't even form a set. It seems like a concept that has very little to offer.

Replying toBook review: Sleight of Mind (Matt Cook)

It's interesting that you choose dividing by zero as your comparison to infinity, because there are infinite possible solutions to x/0.

I think if you ask a mathematician what x/0 is, they'll say "undefined" or "that's not a valid question". But if you ask how many natural numbers there are they'll say "infinity" (or ℵ-zero). But we could have defined x/0 as "foo" to see what resulted, like sqrt(-1) is i. But I think not much results and so people don't bother, and maybe we shouldn't have bothered with infinity either.

(I don't think the same about infinitesimals though! Analysis is a valid field of study!)

how often was zero (or nothingness) included in the paradoxes in the book?

There's one of the silly 1==2 tricks where a divide-by-zero is obfuscated. There's a number that involve infinite series, or infinite processes. The chapters on formal systems, voting, physics, etc don't involve such things though, so I wouldn't say that they're all based on it.

Replying toBook review: Sleight of Mind (Matt Cook)

I don't understand what you mean by "the structure behind infinity"

I mean it in contrast to, for example, sqrt(-1). There was clearly a “hole” in polynomial equations: equations that couldn't be solved. Cardano decided to just define the thing that would fit in that hole and explored the structures that resulted. That turned out fantastically! The structure of complex numbers is incredibly rich and, with 20th century physics, turns out to be arguably more fundamental than the reals.

People tried to repeat that with higher-dimensional numbers. Quaternions have some uses but, as you go up the dimensions, you lose structure, and they become less and less useful.

Infinity strikes me as the same kind... (read more)

This book covers a range of science and mathematics topics by focusing on paradoxes — surprising results, or seeming contradictions. This is an effective way to quickly give a taste, and a few deeper results, across a range of areas. (Chapter list included below.)

Such a range of topics in a single book often means that some are fumbled, sometimes badly. Keeping each to a single chapter obviously mandates omissions and simplifications but, pleasingly, I didn't notice any screw-ups. (Although perhaps that's the bliss of ignorance since I'm not an expert in any of the subjects.)

(At the end one learns that the chapters on physics were written by other authors, who are experts in those... (read 464 more words →)

Replying toWhat currents of thought on LessWrong do you want to see distilled?

What currents of thought on LessWrong do you want to see distilled?

The culture of the FDA didn't spring into being this year, of course. This book covers their failures to regulate foreign manufacturing of generic drugs and it substantially dented my previous belief that generic versions of drugs are equal to the branded. The book is, however, about twice as long as it should be and you may prefer this podcast with the author.

I think to find out what I write

Should I prefer to get a tax refund, or not to?

The maxim goes that “I write to find out what I think”. (Variously attributed to Flannery O'Connor or Joan Didion). It counsels that articulation highlights gaps in arguments, requires concrete positions, and dispels denial of inconvenient conclusions. I do not dispute it.

However, I suspect that the effects flow in both directions. When writing, certain thoughts bubble up from the surface of the mind at the opportune time, by chance. The demands of concision, the limits of time, and the lionisation of decisiveness then exclude the alternatives. Warranted or not, writing amplifies those lucky musings. Unjustified confidence condenses from ambiguity. The words become a commitment, provoking cognitive dissonance when the mind strays elsewhere. Doubly so if published.

Write with care.

Replying toShould I prefer to get a tax refund, or not to?

Bob BakerJan 05, 2021

Don't forget that (in the US, at least) there is a fine for owing too much tax at filing time, while there's no penalty for having paid too much except for opportunity costs. Given the extremely low interest rates currently, the risk is not symmetrical.

Replying toMoral intuitions are surprisingly variable

Moral intuitions are surprisingly variable

I think that personal choices about morality are unaffected by the fact that significantly different cultures exist. Perhaps they call for a soupçon more humility, but your moral intuitions remain axiomatic for you.

Rather I think the adjustment needed in some cases is a greater weight on the idea that your moral intuitions are significantly shaped by the culture that you found yourself in, and that the scope of possibilities is wide.

Perhaps this has little practical impact because, though your axioms might be more arbitrary than supposed, you have little choice but to use them. But there will exist people shaped by very different cultures, who formed different rules, and it's not clear that there's necessarily any ground for debate; the desire for universal morality might be hopeless.

(Or perhaps communications technology will cause Earth to tend towards a singular culture, giving grounds for a morality universal to all, at least until aliens or disconnected space colonies.)

Moral intuitions are surprisingly variable