I don’t have much to say other than that I agree with the connection. Honestly, thinking of it in those terms makes me pessimistic that it’s true—it seems quite possible that humans, given enough time for philosophical reflection, could point to important value-laden features of worlds/plans which are not PSPACE.
Glad that you find the connection interesting. That being said, I’m confused by what you’re saying afterwards: why would logical inductors not able to find propositions about worlds/plans which are outside PSPACE? I find no mention of PSPACE in the paper.
I don’t have much to say other than that I agree with the connection. Honestly, thinking of it in those terms makes me pessimistic that it’s true—it seems quite possible that humans, given enough time for philosophical reflection, could point to important value-laden features of worlds/plans which are not PSPACE.
Glad that you find the connection interesting. That being said, I’m confused by what you’re saying afterwards: why would logical inductors not able to find propositions about worlds/plans which are outside PSPACE? I find no mention of PSPACE in the paper.
Oh, well, satisfying the logical induction criterion is stronger than just PSPACE. I see debate, and iterated amplification, as attempts to get away with less than full logical induction. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R3HAvMGFNJGXstckQ/relating-hch-and-logical-induction, especially Paul’s comment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R3HAvMGFNJGXstckQ/relating-hch-and-logical-induction?commentId=oNPtnwTYcn8GixC59