Most of the foundational problems pointed out in the sequences — anthropic reasoning, reflective reasoning, strange loop circularity — haven’t been solved
I’m currently writing a series of posts on anthropic reasoning with the ultimate goal of solving it once and for all.
How do you imagine a satisfying solution? What are the problems you would like to be addressed and questions to be answered?
Likewise, what are the issues with reflective reasoning strange loop circularity?
I saw your series and I’m happy you’re working on it. Unfortunately I’m not well versed enough in the subject (or probability in general) to say what a satisfying solution would look like or what exactly are the problems and questions I would like to be addressed and answered. For the same reason I’m also not really able to evaluate your work. I wish it got more attention from people who are more well versed in it.
Reflective Reasoning is something Eliezer and others wrote a lot about. “Strage loop circularity” is my name for something Eliezer gestured at a few times, which he called “Strange loops through the meta level”. In Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom he justifies using Induction to justify induction and Occam’s razor to justify Occam’s razor, and says that it seems to him like it should be possible to formalize something that allows you to make valid “circular” reasoning like this, but still prevents invalid circular reasoning. I share his intuition, but don’t have the capability to solve the problem. But if it is solved then it solves the Münchhausen trilemma, which is quite an annoying thorn.
In Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom he justifies using Induction to justify induction and Occam’s razor to justify Occam’s razor, and says that it seems to him like it should be possible to formalize something that allows you to make valid “circular” reasoning like this
Oh, so it was what I was thinking. Yeah, I’ve just been explaining how it all makes sense to a person on Astral Codex. I think Eliezer mostly solved Münchhausen trilemma in the very same essay, or at least provided crucial insight for it. But an accurate and detailed explanation definetely wouldn’t harm. As soon as I finished with anthropics, I’ll try to provide it.
I think saying he “mostly solved” it goes too far, even he says so. But I definitely agree he provided crucial insight for it. I think I also added a bit in this comment.
As soon as I finished with anthropics, I’ll try to provide it
Awesome. I hope people pay attention.
Btw here are the posts I can find where he talks about this:
I’m currently writing a series of posts on anthropic reasoning with the ultimate goal of solving it once and for all.
How do you imagine a satisfying solution? What are the problems you would like to be addressed and questions to be answered?
Likewise, what are the issues with reflective reasoning strange loop circularity?
I saw your series and I’m happy you’re working on it. Unfortunately I’m not well versed enough in the subject (or probability in general) to say what a satisfying solution would look like or what exactly are the problems and questions I would like to be addressed and answered. For the same reason I’m also not really able to evaluate your work. I wish it got more attention from people who are more well versed in it.
Reflective Reasoning is something Eliezer and others wrote a lot about. “Strage loop circularity” is my name for something Eliezer gestured at a few times, which he called “Strange loops through the meta level”. In Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom he justifies using Induction to justify induction and Occam’s razor to justify Occam’s razor, and says that it seems to him like it should be possible to formalize something that allows you to make valid “circular” reasoning like this, but still prevents invalid circular reasoning. I share his intuition, but don’t have the capability to solve the problem. But if it is solved then it solves the Münchhausen trilemma, which is quite an annoying thorn.
Oh, so it was what I was thinking. Yeah, I’ve just been explaining how it all makes sense to a person on Astral Codex. I think Eliezer mostly solved Münchhausen trilemma in the very same essay, or at least provided crucial insight for it. But an accurate and detailed explanation definetely wouldn’t harm. As soon as I finished with anthropics, I’ll try to provide it.
I think saying he “mostly solved” it goes too far, even he says so. But I definitely agree he provided crucial insight for it. I think I also added a bit in this comment.
Awesome. I hope people pay attention.
Btw here are the posts I can find where he talks about this:
Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom
My Kind of Reflection
Fundamental Doubts
You Provably Can’t Trust Yourself
And here he mentions it but doesn’t talk primarily about it:
Setting Up Metaethics
“Arbitrary”
Mirrors and Paintings
Is Fairness Arbitrary?
The Meaning of Right