OrthernLight_duplicate0.6518862750428274
11
7
OrthernLight_duplicate0.6518862750428274 has not written any posts yet.
OrthernLight_duplicate0.6518862750428274 has not written any posts yet.
As far as partly right theories that have value: if we know quantum theory is not completely right, then we've ruled out the hypothesis 'quantum theory' and are now dealing with the hypothesis space of theories that share some parts with quantum theory.
T in this case is not atomic; it is itself a conjunction of a lot of statements. So I agree that I theory known to be inaccurate in some cases can be useful, in that it may contain some true components as well as some untrue ones. But this is rather different than how we treated it when we thought it could be true in its own right.
In general, I agree that there are certain ideas in science that aren't propositions in Bayesian sense, and that treating them as if they were is a serious mistake. I don't think that this means that there's something wrong with the probability probability calculus, however.
Relativity and QM contradict but we don't know which is mistaken or why. Either one, individually, could be true in its own right.
The situation (our current understanding which has value) looks nothing like we'll end up keeping one and rejecting the other.
I don't see how these two statements can be consistent. If either one, individually, could be true in its own right, then why wouldn't we won't end up keeping one? If they contradict, then why wouldn't we reject the other?
By the way, is there an explanation of the current status of LessWrong and LessWrong2.0, and could some one give me the link? I've found a few mentions of it, but am still slightly confused.
He's saying we use them both, and that has value, even though we know there must be some mistake somewhere. Saying "or" misrepresents the current situation. Both of them seem to be partly right. The situation (our current understanding which has value) looks nothing like we'll end up keeping one and rejecting the other.
I haven't much knowledge of physics, and though that he was discussing the idea of two mutually exclusive theories which we use both of. From what you're saying, it sounds more like the crucial point is that they are presumably false, but still useful. Is that a good description of the situation?
As far as partly right theories that have... (read more)
(Epistemic status: sufficiently abstract that I can't be very confident without more familiarity with the topic)
(1) the objective of science is, or should be, to increase our ‘credence’ for true theories
I would suggest that it should also decrease our credence in false theories, and allow us to correctly estimate the likelyhood of conjectures not yet proven or disproved.
However, if T is an explanatory theory (e.g. ‘the sun is powered by nuclear fusion’), then its negation ~T (‘the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion’) is not an explanation at all.
Well, no - it's a set of explanations. A very large set, consisting of every explanation other than ‘the sun is powered... (read more)
Is it acceptable to cross-post on threads like this? I’ve recently been wanting to post the same thing here and on the SSC Discord and perhaps in a few other places, since all of these communities are small enough that I don’t always expect to get much response, and while there’s a lot of overlap, it’s far from complete.
Also, actually writing up what I want to say sometimes presents a large barrier; if I re-use what is for me the hardest part, namely starting a conversation, I’d be more likely to start actively participating.
I don't see how these statements can be consistent.
...if relativity and QM contradict, and QM turns out to be right, I'd expect us to reject relativity. Do you agree?