> I don’t think the particular bundle of themes and qualities of Winter-Solstice-as-depicted-by-Raemon is the only or best thing to have converged on, just one locally optimal* hill to climb.
> I doubt it quite addresses your concern, but I will note for now that I’ve since experimente...(read more)
You know… setting aside any other objections I might have to the Solstice celebrations (which I certainly don’t want to rehash), there’s one part of this that I could never relate to:
> Winter feels like a time of huddling in the darkness, drawing people close. I want to be reminded that the ligh...(read more)
Unrelatedly to my other comment: I don’t understand what is being depicted on the last chart. What is the horizontal axis? What is the blue gradient? What are the call-outs referring to…?
For what it’s worth, the diagrams look fine to me. I didn’t spot any see any inconsistencies, (though I may’ve missed something). Certainly the happy/sad diagram looks just fine.
This post seems to be pointing at something interesting and useful, but it seems to me that (apart from any criticisms such as [this one](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xuxRgk5tub6xckTuZ/dimensional-decoupling#8QRLtTTThQ6sQg6GY)) the main problem is that you don’t actually tell us *how* to do dimen...(read more)
I agree with almost all of this, disagree with a couple of minor things, have some other comments, and overall think this is a good comment.
But—could you make your bulleted list into a numbered list? This will make it a lot easier to respond to individual points!
> How do you think I should have explained the situation? Preferably, in less than four paragraphs?
Assuming that “the situation” in question is this, from upthread—
> We unfortunately live in a world where sometimes A implies C, but A & B does not imply C, for some values of A, B, C.
I wou...(read more)
Yes, I saw your definition. The standard sort of generalization of propositional logic to probabilistic beliefs does not rescue your claims.
> And, if you see a wet sidewalk and know nothing about any sprinklers, then “rain” is the correct inference to make (depending on your priors). Surely we a...(read more)
> When B is not known … A implies C
No. This is wrong. This is what I am saying: when B is *not known*, A does **not** imply C. A can **only** imply C if B is *known to be false*.
*Edit:* In other words, **A -> (B ∨ C)**.
*Edit 2:* Spelling it out in more detail:
* **A ⇒ (B ∨ C)**
* **(...(read more)