sullyj3

Posts

Sorted by New

Comments

This feels elitist, ubermenchy, and a little masturbatory. I can't really tell what point, if any, you're trying to make. I don't disagree that many of the traits you list are admirable, but noticing that isn't particularly novel or insightful. Your conceptual framework seems like little more than thinly veiled justification for finding reasons to look down on others. Calling people more or less "human" fairly viscerally evokes past justifications for subjugating races and treating them as property.

We're supposed to learn agency from Fight Club? That frankly seems like terrible advice.

Infinite Certainty

The truth of probability theory itself depends on non-contradiction, so I don't really think that probability is a valid framework for reasoning about the truth of fundamental logic, because if logic is suspect probability itself becomes suspect.

The Number Choosing Game: Against the existence of perfect theoretical rationality

Cudos to Andreas Giger for noticing what most of the commentators seemed to miss: "How can utility be maximised when there is no maximum utility? The answer of course is that it can't." This is incredibly close to stating that perfect rationality doesn't exist, but it wasn't explicitly stated, only implied.

I think the key is infinite vs finite universes. Any conceivable finite universe can be arranged in a finite number of states, one, or perhaps several of which, could be assigned maximum utility. You can't do this in universes involving infinity. So if you want perfect rationality, you need to reduce your infinite universe to just the stuff you care about. This is doable in some universes, but not in the ones you posit.

In our universe, we can shave off the infinity, since we presumably only care about our light cone.

Subjective vs. normative offensiveness

Unfortunately the only opinions you're gonna get on what should be instituted as a norm are subjective ones. So... Take the average? What if not everyone thinks that's a good idea? Etc, etc, it's basically the same problem as all of ethics.

Drawing that distinction between normative and subjective offensiveness still seems useful.

The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world?

Just encountered an interesting one:

Eradication of the Parasitoid Wasp is genocide!

What are you learning?

Perhaps a solution could be to create stronger social ties; video chat? Could be good for asking each other for help and maybe progress reports for accountability and positive reinforcement.

What are you learning?

As an interested denizen of 2015, It might be cool to make this a regular (say, monthly?) thread, with a tag for the archive.

You only need faith in two things

Oh, like Achilles and the tortoise. Thanks, this comment clarified things a bit.

You only need faith in two things

Doesn't this add "the axioms of probability theory" ie "logic works" ie "the universe runs on math" to our list of articles of faith?

Edit: After further reading, it seems like this is entailed by the "Large ordinal" thing. I googled well orderedness, encountered the wikipedia article, and promptly shat a brick.

What sequence of maths do I need to study to get from Calculus I to set theory and what the hell well orderedness means?

Load More