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:
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