It looks as if you (Will) are trying to make some sort of equivalence between the idea of “going meta” and the “principle of sufficient reason”, but surely these are completely different things.
Going meta (in the sense used here): saying “OK, so is there a reason why this is the way it is, and if so what’s the reason?”
Principle of sufficient reason: “Everything that is true is true because of some prior reason sufficient to make it true.”
PSR is not at all the same thing as “going meta”; it’s not even the same kind of thing as “going meta”; it is one particular opinion about what sort of answers one will get when one goes meta.
It doesn’t seem to me that the PSR is credible enough to warrant the sort of amount of attention you’re trying to give it here, and in particular tying it to LWers’ fondness for meta-ness seems entirely out of order.
(It feels to me as if the nearest thing to the PSR in LW tradition is not the idea of “going meta” but the idea of Solomonoff induction. But I haven’t thought this through very hard.)
Y’know, if you were actually interested in improving the quality of discourse here, you (or for that matter Will) could explain what you find wrong in what I wrote rather than making meta-comments about voting and imaginary “retaliation”.
(For what it’s worth, I haven’t downvoted either Will’s comment or yours. Though I’m thinking maybe I ought to downvote yours for consistency with my general policy of downvoting complaining-about-voting comments.)
“Everything that is true is true because of some [logically] prior reason sufficient to make it true.”
Doesn’t that provide the structure to both justify and motivate going meta? It may not be precisely equivalent, but it seems pretty close. Intuitively, we expect going meta to produce more broadly applicable rulesets, rather than just a prior cause; but I have a feeling that’s simply a learned expectation because it usually does so; sufficient reasons ought to behave similarly.
I agree that PSR can justify one variety of “going meta”. I don’t agree that a practice of frequently “going meta” requires, or implies, any sort of PSR. I am prepared to be convinced, but so far it doesn’t seem that anyone who disagrees with me thinks it worth the effort of convincing me.
If someone disliked Will’s comment they could already downvote it. I’m about 80% confident that the people who downvoted your comment did so because they thought it didn’t contribute to the discussion rather than because they wanted an extra way of “lashing out” at Will or at you.
And, I repeat, if you are actually interested in rational discussion then you might want to consider explaining what I said that makes Will’s response appropriate. (From others of your comments it’s clear that you’re a very intelligent person, so I promise I’d pay attention. And, for the avoidance of doubt, when I said “I haven’t thought this through very hard” I meant it; so I take it that Will’s remark and yours are intended to indicate some particularly egregious wrongness on my part.)
intended to indicate some particularly egregious wrongness
No, just garden variety half-wrong the way like a quarter of LW comments are garden variety half-wrong. But I have higher standards for you than most LW folk since you make insightful technical comments so I felt it was maybe worth just pointing out that I disagreed with you even after hearing your arguments even though I didn’t have time to expound on why I disagreed.
If someone disliked Will’s comment they could already downvote it.
Yes, but they couldn’t downvote my upvote, which is why I made a karma sink for them.
I repeat, if you are actually interested in rational discussion then you might want to consider explaining what I said that makes Will’s response appropriate.
Material implications are always true when their antecedent is false.
From others of your comments it’s clear that you’re a very intelligent person, so I promise I’d pay attention.
Flatterer.
I take it that Will’s remark and yours are intended to indicate some particularly egregious wrongness on my part
Would you have preferred the response “Oh ye of little faith”? That was the other one I had in mind. It was really a tough call, I thought about it for at least two minutes. Given how the thread went I think I chose correctly.
It looks as if you (Will) are trying to make some sort of equivalence between the idea of “going meta” and the “principle of sufficient reason”, but surely these are completely different things.
Going meta (in the sense used here): saying “OK, so is there a reason why this is the way it is, and if so what’s the reason?”
Principle of sufficient reason: “Everything that is true is true because of some prior reason sufficient to make it true.”
PSR is not at all the same thing as “going meta”; it’s not even the same kind of thing as “going meta”; it is one particular opinion about what sort of answers one will get when one goes meta.
It doesn’t seem to me that the PSR is credible enough to warrant the sort of amount of attention you’re trying to give it here, and in particular tying it to LWers’ fondness for meta-ness seems entirely out of order.
(It feels to me as if the nearest thing to the PSR in LW tradition is not the idea of “going meta” but the idea of Solomonoff induction. But I haven’t thought this through very hard.)
I can tell.
I feel bad upvoting this, so here’s a karma sink for people to retaliate.
Y’know, if you were actually interested in improving the quality of discourse here, you (or for that matter Will) could explain what you find wrong in what I wrote rather than making meta-comments about voting and imaginary “retaliation”.
(For what it’s worth, I haven’t downvoted either Will’s comment or yours. Though I’m thinking maybe I ought to downvote yours for consistency with my general policy of downvoting complaining-about-voting comments.)
Doesn’t that provide the structure to both justify and motivate going meta? It may not be precisely equivalent, but it seems pretty close. Intuitively, we expect going meta to produce more broadly applicable rulesets, rather than just a prior cause; but I have a feeling that’s simply a learned expectation because it usually does so; sufficient reasons ought to behave similarly.
I agree that PSR can justify one variety of “going meta”. I don’t agree that a practice of frequently “going meta” requires, or implies, any sort of PSR. I am prepared to be convinced, but so far it doesn’t seem that anyone who disagrees with me thinks it worth the effort of convincing me.
There was nothing imaginary about it. People tend to feel better about things they don’t like if they can lash out at someone in response.
If someone disliked Will’s comment they could already downvote it. I’m about 80% confident that the people who downvoted your comment did so because they thought it didn’t contribute to the discussion rather than because they wanted an extra way of “lashing out” at Will or at you.
And, I repeat, if you are actually interested in rational discussion then you might want to consider explaining what I said that makes Will’s response appropriate. (From others of your comments it’s clear that you’re a very intelligent person, so I promise I’d pay attention. And, for the avoidance of doubt, when I said “I haven’t thought this through very hard” I meant it; so I take it that Will’s remark and yours are intended to indicate some particularly egregious wrongness on my part.)
No, just garden variety half-wrong the way like a quarter of LW comments are garden variety half-wrong. But I have higher standards for you than most LW folk since you make insightful technical comments so I felt it was maybe worth just pointing out that I disagreed with you even after hearing your arguments even though I didn’t have time to expound on why I disagreed.
OK, noted.
Yes, but they couldn’t downvote my upvote, which is why I made a karma sink for them.
Material implications are always true when their antecedent is false.
Flatterer.
Probably unwarranted.
EDIT: Unwarranted; see brother comment.
Would you have preferred the response “Oh ye of little faith”? That was the other one I had in mind. It was really a tough call, I thought about it for at least two minutes. Given how the thread went I think I chose correctly.
Are you still aiming to reduce your credibility on LW?