All of flowerfeatherfocus's Comments + Replies

It seems this isn't true, excepting only the title and the concluding question. FWIW this wasn't at all obvious to me either.

2Dave Orr2y
Thanks for following up and clarifying!

Separate from the specific claims, it seems really unhelpful to say something like this in such a deliberately confusing, tongue-in-cheek way. It's surely unhelpful strategically to be so unclear, and it also just seems mean-spirited to blur the lines between sarcasm and sincerity in such a bleak and also extremely confident write-up, given that lots of readers regard you as an authority and take your thoughts on this subject seriously.

I’ve heard from three people who have lost the better part of a day or more trying to mentally disengage from this ~shitpost. Whatever you were aiming for, it's hard for me to imagine how this hasn't missed the mark.

I can imagine how this might be considered a "~shitpost" but I thought it was clear and obvious and not confusing. But I also don't think that has that much to do with "people who have lost the better part of a day or more trying to mentally disengage from this". I just read this post, wasn't confused, but I still expect this to 'ruin' my day.
8Rob Bensinger2y
If it helps, I tried to clarify what the post is and isn't serious about here (and Eliezer endorses my comment). I think the title of the post was a mistake, because the post is basically just serious, and priming people to expect an April Fool's thing was too confusing. Adding in a little April Fool's afterthought-joke at the end bothers me less, though with hindsight I think the specific joke-line "it's a preview of what might be needful to say later, if matters really do get that desperate" was a mistake, because it sounds too plausible. (I complained about the title before the post went live. :P Though I told Eliezer I'd rather see him post this with the bad title than not post at all.)

Yeah, agreed :) I mentioned  existing as a surreal in the original comment, though more in passing than epsilon. I guess the name Norklet more than anything made me think to mention epsilon--it has a kinda infinitesimal ring to it. But agreed that  is a way better analog.

This is great! It reminds me a bit of ordinal arithmetic, in which addition is non-commutative. The ordinal numbers begin with all infinitely many natural numbers, followed by the first infinite ordinal, . The next ordinal is , which is greater than . But  is just 

Subtraction isn't canonically defined for the ordinals, so  isn't a thing, but there's an extension of the ordinal numbers called the surreal numbers where it does exist. Sadly addition is defined differently on the surreals, and here it ... (read more)

One big difference, I think, is that you can't get to ω by (finite) counting, but you can get to Noranoo?
ω-1 does exist as a surreal and is way better direct analog for Norklet