If you haven't already, you might consider speaking with a doctor. Sudden, intense changes to one's internal sense of logic are often explainable by an underlying condition (as you yourself have noted). I'd rather not play the "diagnose a person over the internet" game, nor encourage anyone else here to do so. You should especially see a doctor if you actually think you've had a stroke. It is possible to recover from many different sorts of brain trauma, and the earlier you act, the better odds you have of identifying the problem (if it exists!).
What can a "level 5 framework" do, operationally, that is different than what can be done with a Bayes net?
I admit that I don't understand what you're actually trying to argue, Christian.
Hi Flinter (and welcome to LessWrong)
You've resorted to a certain argumentative style in some of your responses, and I wanted to point it out to you. Essentially, someone criticizes one of your posts, and your response is something like:
"Don't you understand how smart John Nash is? How could you possibly think your criticism is something that John Nash hadn't thought of already?"
The thing about ideas, notwithstanding the brilliance of those ideas or where they might have come from, is that communicating those ideas effectively is just as important as the idea itself. Even if Nash's Ideal Money scheme is the most important thing in the universe, if you can't communicate the idea effectively, and if you can't convincingly respond to criticism without hostility, no one will ever understand that idea but you.
A great modern example of this is Mochizuki's interuniversal Teichmuller theory, which he singlehandedly developed over the course of a decade in near complete isolation. It's an extremely technically dense new way of doing number theory that he claims resolves several outstanding conjectures in number theory (including the ABC Conjecture, among a couple others). And it's taken over four years for some very high profile mathematicians to start verifying that it's probably correct. This required workshops and hundreds of communications between Mochizuki and other mathematicians.
Point being: Progress is sociological as much as it is empirical. If you aren't able to effectively communicate the importance of an idea, it might be because the community at large is hostile to new ideas, even when represented in the best way possible. But if a community--a community which is, nominally, dedicated to rationally evaluating ideas--is unable to understand your representation, or see the importance of it, it might just be because you're bad at explaining it, the idea isn't all that great, or both.
I've found that I only ever get something sort of like sleep paralysis when I sleep flat on my back, so +1 for sleeping orientation mattering for some reason.
This is essentially what username2 was getting at, but I'll try a different direction.
It's entirely possible that "what caused the big bang" is a nonsensical question. 'Causes' and 'Effects' only exist insofar as there are things which exist to cause causes and effect effects. The "cause and effect" apparatus could be entirely contained within the universe, in the same way that it's not really sensible to talk about "before" the universe.
Alternatively, it could be that there's no "before" because the universe has always existed. Or that our universe nucleated from another universe, and that one could follow the causal chain of universes nucleating within universe backwards forever. Or that time is circular.
I suspect that the reason I'm not religious is that I'm not at all bothered by the question "Why is there a universe, rather than not a universe?" not having a meaningful answer. Or rather, it feels overwhelmingly anthropocentric to expect that the answer to that question, if there even was one, would be comprehensible to me. Worse, if the answer really was "God did it," I think I would just be disappointed.
If you aren't interested in engaging with me, then why did you respond to my thread? Especially when the content of your post seems to be "No you're wrong, and I don't want to explain why I think so."?
What precisely is Eliezer basically correct about on the physics?
It is true that non-unitary gates allow you to break physics in interesting ways. It is absolutely not true that violating conservation of energy will lead to a nonunitary gate. Eliezer even eventually admits (or at least admits that he 'may have misunderstood') an error in the physics here. (see this subthread).
This isn't really a minor physics mistake. Unitarity really has nothing at all to do with energy conservation.
Haha fair enough!
I never claimed whether he was or not wasn't Important. I just didn't focus on that aspect of the argument because it's been discussed at length elsewhere (the reddit thread, for example). And I've repeatedly offered to talk about the object level point if people were interested.
I'm not sure why someone's sense of fairness would be rankled when I directly link to essentially all of the evidence on the matter. It would be different if I was just baldly claiming "Eliezer done screwed up" without supplying any evidence.
I never said that determining the sincerity of criticism would be easy. I can step through the argument with links, I'd you'd like!