lucidfox's Comments

Conservation of Expected Evidence

It is correct that we can never find enough evidence to make our certainty of a theory to be exactly 1 (though we can get it very close to 1). If we were absolutely certain in a theory, then no amount of counterevidence, no matter how damning, could ever change our mind.

Sorting Pebbles Into Correct Heaps

I wonder: do the names Y'ha-nthlei, Y'not'ha-nthlei, and At'gra'len'ley mean anything? I assume Y'ha and Y'not'ha mean "you have" and "you don't have", but beyond that it just seems random.


Indeed, if the two axes are the coordinates of the two particles, then one blob should be in the lower left and the other in the upper right. Seems Eliezer made a mistake with this diagram.

The Goal of the Bayesian Conspiracy

the median rationalist is still struggling to get a date

First, [citation needed].

Second, if it's true, perhaps one should look at oneself and ask why.

Take heed, for it is a trap

Just because I read the sequences doesn't mean I'm particularly likely to agree with any of them. Some, yes, but not all. Many of the statements you listed are controversial even on LW. If they were unanimously accepted here without further discussion, it would be a worrying sign.

Polarized gamma rays and manifest infinity

That was a joke on my part, but one warning against using overly general umbrella terms. Our copyright and patent laws developed as a result of certain historical circumstances, and it is entirely possible that a hypothetical alien civilization would treat sharing and distribution of ideas entirely differently and not resembling any of our historical precedents.

New Post version 1 (please read this ONLY if your last name beings with a–k)

...I didn't? Drat. Sorry.

This is what I get for not looking over my own comments before I post them. I'll be more vigilant in the future.

Load More