unication — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toFundamental Uncertainty: Chapter 8 - When does fundamental uncertainty matter?

Fundamental Uncertainty: Chapter 8 - When does fundamental uncertainty matter?

The problem of the criterion and Gödel's incompleteness theorems place limits on what can be known through observation and reason alone.

I'd argue that it doesn't impose limits on what can be known in the general case, though. Observation and reason are two functions which we use to find things out, like Peano arithmetic is a function used to actuate logic. But we have better (ie. larger) functions now, like ZFC. We can build larger models of reason, and we can get better at observation, which appears to imply that incompleteness merely shows that as long as we are unable to build an infinitely complex reasoning / observational system, we will miss something that lies outside of the explanatory powers of said system.

That being said, I don't think it'd be possible to build an infinitely large system of reasoning.

unication's Shortform

unication

4mo

This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.

unication4moQuick Take

"AI will not destroy the universe" — a take that I believe to be fully defensible.

This is a very hypothetical situation, based on some assumptions about the nature of the universe (which I think are plausible):

ASSUMPTIONS:

Total, deterministic knowledge of the universe is possible
The universe is (essentially) infinitely manipulatable
1. I can expand more on this, but it boils down to the fact that all properties of the universe (mass, space, matter) are formed of a single type of energy, otherwise they wouldn't be able to interact
2. If the universe were made of two wholly distinct things, then they would not be able to interact, and would not be part of the same universe
A bootstrapping superintelligence

... (read 384 more words →)

-3

-2

NO PARKING: A Short & Practical Guide To Thinking

unication

7mo

How might we learn to think and act in a positive way, and build a future worth considering? We can make frameworks for our thought. But complex frameworks are often not worth the extra effort, and poorly-created frameworks are worse than having no frameworks at all. So what might be a simple, elegant, and timeless framework for thought? How can we get people to do things that benefit everyone without explicitly prescribing what 'good' is and 'how to achieve good'. I believe this has implications for law, education, and AI alignment — which I will discuss in a later post.

When I feel negatively towards something, I often think, I wonder “Why do... (read 1488 more words →)

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

I very much understand your comments on metaphysics and its general circularity, or ability to only prove things which they take as axiomatic.

So, if this is such a stumbling block, then how about we start by just assuming the single-substance universe, and work up from there with the physics? Have you read my response to Mitchell_Porter? I'm extremely interested in getting into the meat of things, because as much as what I'm saying is ridiculous, I've really put together the maths and it does largely check out.

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

mathematical objects aren't real in the same way a tree is

I'd argue that this is largely meaningless, since if it is a purely mental concept, and all mental concepts have to supervene on physical reality (for it makes no sense to have a thought without something actually existing — this is not to say that I think that qualia doesn't exist) — then mathematical objects are real in the same way that a tree is, through our understanding of them.

exactly which flavor of metaphysical framing we adopt is mostly a matter of opinion, taste, and usefulness for our own thinking.

Ok, I'd say that this particular definition of the world as a monistic... (read more)

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

Your second paragraph reads to me in this way: We can create functions between anything that exists, as long as it exists. (ie. the empty category is simply non-existence) — I hope I'm right in reading that, since that argument is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

According to that statement, it is logically impossible to have a flat discontinuity between X and Y that could not be trivially bridged by a function — ∴ such a function Z could not not exist, which then proves that every X-Y pair can be bridged, which means that B) in my previous argument cannot be the case, then A) has to be the case,... (read more)

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

With regards to the bridge-based dualism that you discuss here, and indeed every single flavour of pluralism, I would argue that if you're making a gradual distinction between X and Y through a bridge Z, then it is not logical to say that either X, Y, or Z has an implicit existence outside of the whole {X,Y,Z} set, which could be inferred as a monism. All flavours of pluralism fall into this format, in which people pick certain world-qualities and claim they are different to one another (which is true) but then do not understand that by fact of their having-to-interact, this means that they have to share at least some gradient-similarity.

Here's... (read more)

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

I'll go over it in this comment very briefly — I'm trying to write a post for next week.

Firstly, we consider the global structure of the universe. We would like to have the overall dimensional structure to be the simplest structure required for propagation of matter through a completely locally similar universe. This means that any contraction in any dimension has to be balanced by expansion in another, and in a simple 3D universe, this axiom wouldn't be able to produce the results that we see in reality. Increases in density require fluidity, which requires discrete foreground particles moving past one another in background space. So we must have a perfectly consistently dense... (read 630 more words →)

-2

Replying toGetting To and From Monism

unication8mo

Getting To and From Monism

Variance does not have to necessarily entail the existence of a separation of 'background' and 'foreground' substance. It is possible to have a single substance, which, due to dimensionally-symmetrical disturbances (which keep space at a local constant density) can cause higher level representations of those disturbances (ie. particles) to appear to 'move'.

A perception of time does not foreclose on monism either. Time is a measure of when, not a physical thing that can be stretched or compressed. Hence, there is no disagreement with the axiom when we say that time is not made of substance.

It could be argued that this is part of the original axiom, but honestly, you are correct in saying that it is not insinuated by my original claim. So I'll say that this is maybe a secondary axiom, but conceptually linked to the main one.

Getting To and From Monism

unication

8mo

Monism, in its most basic form, is the belief that the world is comprised of a single substance. I believe there to be a genuine way to prove this, regardless of whether or not you understand what this 'single substance' might be at root. We can go from logic, to monism, and then we can make some assumptions about the physical universe, which I believe to be helpful. Furthermore, you can use this formulation of monism to understand ideas of consciousness, separation of minds, physicalism, and a cavalcade of hitherto unsolved problems within physics.

In this first section, I will explain how to get to this monism, and discuss possible axioms that can... (read 894 more words →)

-5