All of Liliet B's Comments + Replies

Mirrors are useful even though you don't expect to see another person in them.

Sometimes you need a person to be a mirror to your thoughts.

why they haven't been able to solve it yet?

the magic part.

Bad / insufficiently curiosed-through advice is often infuriating because the person giving it seems to be assuming you're an idiot / have come to them as soon as you noticed the problem. Which is very rarely true! Generally, between spotting the problem and talking to another person about it, there's a pretty fucking long solution-seeking stage. Where "pretty fucking long" can be anything between ten minutes ("i lost my pencil and can't find it )=") (where actually common sense suggestions MIGHT be... (read more)

As an ADHD person for whom "reduce impulsiveness" is about as practical a goal as "learn telekinesis", reducing delay is actually super easy. Did you know people feel good about completing tasks and achieving goals? All you have to do to have a REALLY short delay between starting the task and an expected reward is explicitly, in your own mind, define a sufficiently small sub-task as A Goal. Then the next one, you don't even need breaks in-between if it goes well - even if what you're doing is as inherently meaningless as, I dunno, filling in an excel table... (read more)

Prior probabilities with no experience in a domain at all is an incoherent notion, since that implies you don't know what the words you're using even refer to. Priors include all prior knowledge, including knowledge about the general class of problems like the one you're trying to eyeball a prior for.

If you're asked to perform experiments on finding out what tapirs eat - and you don't know what tapirs even are, except that they eat something apparently, judging by the formulation of the problem - you're already going to assign... (read more)

Ordinary language includes mathematics.

"One, two, three, four" is ordinary language. "The thing turned right" is ordinary language (it's also multiplication by -i).

Feynman was right, he just neglected to specify that the ordinary language needed to explain physics would necessarily include the math subset of it.

"Many worlds can be seen as a kind of non-local theory, as the nature of the theory assumes a specific time line of "simultaneity" along which the universe can "split" at an instant."

As I understand, no it doesn't. The universe split is also local, and if at a difference at point A preserves the same particles at point B, then at point B we only have the same universe (where at point A we have multiple). The configurations merge together. It's more like vibration than splitting into paths that go into different direc... (read more)

When I worldbuild with magic, this is somehow automatically intuitive - so I always end up assuming (if not necessarily specifying explicitly) a 'magic field' or smth that does the thermodynamic work and that the bits of entropy are shuffled over to. Kind of like how looking something up on the internet is 'magic' from an outside observer's POV if people only have access nodes inside their heads and cannot actually show them to observers, or like how extracting power from the electricity grid into devices is 'magic' under... (read more)

I would propose an approximation of the system where each node has a terminal value of its own (which can be 0 for completely neutral nodes, but actually no they cannot - reinforcement mechanisms of our brain inevitably give something like 0.0001 because I heard someone say it was cool once or -0.002 because it reminds me of a sad event in my childhood)

As a simple example, consider eating food when hungry. You get a terminal value on eating food - the immediate satisfaction the brain releases in the form of chemicals as a response to recognition of the eve... (read more)

The ultimate prior is maximum entropy, aka "idk", aka "50/50: either happens or not". We never actually have it, because we start gathering evidence for how the world is before our brains even form enough to make any links between it.

That prior doesn't work when there is a countable number of hypotheses, aka "I've picked a number from {0,1,2,...}. Which?" or "Given that the laws of physics can be described by a computer program, which?".

As noted above, rehearsing all the evidence against your position alongside your own should be a counter. As in the article's example, the math should not be "1 vs 3 every time", but it should not be "1 vs 3 the first time, 1 vs 0 the second and subsequent times" either. It should be "1 vs 3, then 2 vs 3, then..."

In actual debate practice, it might confuse the other person that you're listing their points for them, but I've found it a helpful practice anyway.

I'd go with this. Gather all the evidence in one place as you're attempting to update... Otherwise you might miss that shiny new counterevidence actually screens off some old counterevidence you'd already updated on, or is screened off by it and you don't need to update at all.

Not if you consider that the 1:5 figure constrains that ONLY one person among the six has a crush on you. If you learn for a fact one does, you'll also immediately know the others all don't. Which is not true for a random selection of students - you could randomly pick six that all have a crush on you. Bob belongs to a group in which you know for a fact five people DON'T have a crush on you. So you have evidence lowering Bob's odds relative to a random winker.

Either that, or it doesn't matter how many actually have a crush on you, you're looking for the sp

... (read more)
"you'll also immediately know the others all don't" No. Receiving an anonymous love note from among the 6 in NO WAY informs you that 5 of the 6 DON'T have a crush on you. All it does is take the unspecified prior (rate of these 6 humans having a crush on you), and INCREASE it for all 6 of them. @irmckenzie is right. There's no way you get < 10:1 with MORE positive (confirmatory) evidence for Bob than a random stranger. All positive evidence HAS TO make a rational mind MORE certain the thing is true. Weak evidence, like the letter, which informs that AT LEAST 1 in 6 has a crush, should move a rational mind LESS than strong evidence, like the wink, but it must move it all the same, and in the affirmative direction.

Before you have actually done A, since it might fail because of ~P (which is what the thing you said actually means), your confidence is still the same as before you came up with the plan. We're still at t=0. Information about your plan succeeding or not hasn't arrived yet.

Now if over the course of planning you realize that the very ability you have to make the plan shifts probability estimate of P, then we've already got the new evidence. We're at t=1, and the probability has shifted rightfully without violating the law. The evidence is no longer expected

... (read more)

Let's say you are organising a polar expedition. It will succeed (A) or fail (~A). There is a postulate that there are no man eating polar Cthulhu in the area (P). If there are some (~P), the expedition will fail (~A), thus entangling A with P.

You can do your best to prepare the expedition so that it will not fail for non-Cthulhu reasons, strengthening the entanglement - ~A becomes stronger evidence for ~P. You can also do your best to prepare the expedition to survive even the man eating polar Cthulhu, weakening the entanglement - by introducing a higher

... (read more)