Of course I want to talk to you, debates are always interesting.
If you assert this:
saying rationality is a matter of degrees is basically what a paradox does.
and then this:
A paradox is the assertion that there can be multiple equally valid truth’s to a situation.
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
But regardless, you can’t just say “It’s a paradox.” and leave it at that. Feeling that it’s a paradox, no matter what paradigm that you’re using, shows that you don’t have the actual answer. Take antinomy for example, specifically Kant’s second antinomy concerning Atomism. It’s not actually a paradox, it was just that at the time we had a incomplete theory of how the universe works. Now we know that the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles.
You might find this and this useful further reading.
I’m interested in what you see to be the distinction between linear and non-linear rationality, I’m unfamiliar with applying the concept of linearity to rationality.
Something to keep in mind is the “rationality” you see here is very different to traditional rationality, although we use the same name. In fact a lot of what you’ll come across here won’t be found anywhere else which is why reading a good deal of the sequences is so important. Reading HPMoR is fairly equivalent too though.
I haven’t down-voted you simply because I can see where you’re coming from, you might be wrong or miscommunicating in certain respects, but you’re not being stupid.
Part of the problem is that there’s a huge inferential gap between you and most of the people here, as you say, you don’t know much mathematics and you’re not versed in the word of Eliezer. Similarly the folks here have not (necessarily) studied the social sciences intently, nor are they (necessarily) versed in the words of Weber, Rorty, Dewy or Kant.
Winning in the way we use it, is the best possible course of action to take. It’s distinctly different from the notion of winning a game. If losing a game is the best thing you can do then that is winning. The reason the attempt failed is because you didn’t understand what it was we meant by winning, and proceeded to say something that was untrue under the definition used on LW.
So yes, I’d like to hear about what a paradox means in your field of study. However you must realise that if you haven’t read the sequences, and you don’t know the math, there is a lot this community knows that you are ignorant of. By the same token, there is a lot that you know that the community is ignorant of. Neither thing is a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to remedy it.
Importantly, don’t try and mix your knowledge and LW-rationality until you fully understand LW-rationality. No offence meant.
Hey if it is ok I am going to respond to your comment in pieces. I will start with this one. I say
A paradox is the assertion that there can be multiple equally valid truths to a situation.
To which you respond
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
The reason you see the principle of explosion in my statement is that you are assuming the paradox is dialetheistic, meaning that the multiple equally valid truths I am talking about exist within a single binary. I am not saying Π and –Π are both true. Rather, I am suggesting that to break matrix [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] into binaries (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y) leads to an incompatibility of measurement, and thus multiple equally valid truths.
You say that Antinomy is an outdated Kantian concept. You are correct. It is The reason precisely because of the fact that “we now know the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles” that created antinomy as a type of paradox. Antinomy is a linguistic rather than mathematical paradox. The function of language is to break reality down into schemas of categorization, this process irrevocably takes [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] and transforms it into (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y). As you have said, reality is not constructed of individual particles, but human interaction with reality cannot avoid superimposing individual particles upon it. Because of this, there are instances in the use of language where discourse creates a distinction between elements that does not exist in reality. If we do not acknowledge the potential for such linguistic fallacies, contradiction and competition between these elements cannot be avoided. This is the paradox of antinomy. A talented individual could rephrase this into the dialetheistism “language is both true and not true, but such a statement falls into the very fallacy of language that antinomy as paradox is attempt to warn against, ultimately defeating the purpose of even making the statement.
Not everything can be broken into a tidy maxim or brief summary. Being primarily Bayesians, I am sure you can appreciate that the implementation/ digestion of some ideas have no shortcuts. They do not exist as an individual idea, but rather a monstrous matrix in themselves. Contradicting my own assertion, I will attempt to create my own short maxim to aid in the process of digestion: Language is an inadequate tool for creating reality, but it is the primary tool for creating humans.
Of course I want to talk to you, debates are always interesting.
If you assert this:
and then this:
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
But regardless, you can’t just say “It’s a paradox.” and leave it at that. Feeling that it’s a paradox, no matter what paradigm that you’re using, shows that you don’t have the actual answer. Take antinomy for example, specifically Kant’s second antinomy concerning Atomism. It’s not actually a paradox, it was just that at the time we had a incomplete theory of how the universe works. Now we know that the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles.
You might find this and this useful further reading.
I’m interested in what you see to be the distinction between linear and non-linear rationality, I’m unfamiliar with applying the concept of linearity to rationality.
Something to keep in mind is the “rationality” you see here is very different to traditional rationality, although we use the same name. In fact a lot of what you’ll come across here won’t be found anywhere else which is why reading a good deal of the sequences is so important. Reading HPMoR is fairly equivalent too though.
I haven’t down-voted you simply because I can see where you’re coming from, you might be wrong or miscommunicating in certain respects, but you’re not being stupid.
Part of the problem is that there’s a huge inferential gap between you and most of the people here, as you say, you don’t know much mathematics and you’re not versed in the word of Eliezer. Similarly the folks here have not (necessarily) studied the social sciences intently, nor are they (necessarily) versed in the words of Weber, Rorty, Dewy or Kant.
Winning in the way we use it, is the best possible course of action to take. It’s distinctly different from the notion of winning a game. If losing a game is the best thing you can do then that is winning. The reason the attempt failed is because you didn’t understand what it was we meant by winning, and proceeded to say something that was untrue under the definition used on LW.
So yes, I’d like to hear about what a paradox means in your field of study. However you must realise that if you haven’t read the sequences, and you don’t know the math, there is a lot this community knows that you are ignorant of. By the same token, there is a lot that you know that the community is ignorant of. Neither thing is a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to remedy it.
Importantly, don’t try and mix your knowledge and LW-rationality until you fully understand LW-rationality. No offence meant.
Hey if it is ok I am going to respond to your comment in pieces. I will start with this one. I say
To which you respond
The reason you see the principle of explosion in my statement is that you are assuming the paradox is dialetheistic, meaning that the multiple equally valid truths I am talking about exist within a single binary. I am not saying Π and –Π are both true. Rather, I am suggesting that to break matrix [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] into binaries (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y) leads to an incompatibility of measurement, and thus multiple equally valid truths.
You say that Antinomy is an outdated Kantian concept. You are correct. It is The reason precisely because of the fact that “we now know the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles” that created antinomy as a type of paradox. Antinomy is a linguistic rather than mathematical paradox. The function of language is to break reality down into schemas of categorization, this process irrevocably takes [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] and transforms it into (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y). As you have said, reality is not constructed of individual particles, but human interaction with reality cannot avoid superimposing individual particles upon it. Because of this, there are instances in the use of language where discourse creates a distinction between elements that does not exist in reality. If we do not acknowledge the potential for such linguistic fallacies, contradiction and competition between these elements cannot be avoided. This is the paradox of antinomy. A talented individual could rephrase this into the dialetheistism “language is both true and not true, but such a statement falls into the very fallacy of language that antinomy as paradox is attempt to warn against, ultimately defeating the purpose of even making the statement.
Not everything can be broken into a tidy maxim or brief summary. Being primarily Bayesians, I am sure you can appreciate that the implementation/ digestion of some ideas have no shortcuts. They do not exist as an individual idea, but rather a monstrous matrix in themselves. Contradicting my own assertion, I will attempt to create my own short maxim to aid in the process of digestion: Language is an inadequate tool for creating reality, but it is the primary tool for creating humans.