User Profile

star0
description0
message30

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

> A → □ A doesn't mean "all true statements are provable" [...]

I agree! You are right, the formula "A → □ A" does not mean that all true statements are provable. It means that all "true" statements are "provable" :)

Discussing the math of provability is tricky, because there are many notions of t...(read more)

When you make a data declaration like this, you are essentially postulating (A → □ A) and (□ A → A), for any formula A. This essentially removes the distinction between A (the formula A is "true") and □ A (the formula A is "provable"), meaning you are not working inside the modal logic you think you...(read more)

I understand how that might have happened. Now that I am no longer a heroic volunteer saving my beloved website maiden, but just a potential contributor to an open source project, my motivation has dropped.

It is a strange inversion of effect. The issue list and instructions both make it easier for...(read more)

After finding the [source](https://github.com/tricycle/lesswrong) and the [issue list](http://code.google.com/p/lesswrong/issues/list), I found [instructions](https://github.com/tricycle/lesswrong/wiki/contributing-to-less-wrong) which indicate that there is, after all, non-zero engineering resource...(read more)

Are you kidding? Sign me up as a volunteer polyglot programmer, then!

Although, my own eagerness to help makes me think that the problem might not be that you tried to ask for volunteers and didn't get any, but rather that you tried to work with volunteers and something else didn't work out.

I'm pretty sure I would come up with a reason to continue behaving as today. That's what I did when I discovered, to my horror, that good and bad were human interpretations and not universal mathematical imperatives. Or are you asking what the rational reaction should be?

Thanks for the suggestion. This is not, however, what I was looking for.

[Cached thoughts](http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/) explains that hearing a phrase might be enough for our brain to remember it as true, while [genetic fallacy](http://lesswrong.com/lw/s3/the_genetic_fallacy/) warns...(read more)

> *search for the historical causes of your thoughts, rather than their justifications.*

Is there a standard name or LW article on the subject? I first stumbled upon the importance of that skill [here](http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1sie), on this site, and I wish I knew mo...(read more)

Great case study, in that studying my own reaction to your article has thought me a lot about my own decision making. And my conclusion is that reading a rationalist blog isn't sufficient to become rational!

I am thin, despite having very bad eating habits (according to conventional dietary wisdom)...(read more)

Unfortunately, I think the ban might have the inverse effect. Just reading the post wasn't particularly frightening to me, because I didn't really understand its implications. But Eliezer is a specialist, so if he thinks the post might be dangerous, then damn, maybe it is dangerous, and maybe readin...(read more)