Sorry, my previous reply was based on a misparsing of your comment, so I deleted it.
So the “mathematical intuition module” can be 100% truthful and evil at the same time, because making true statements isn’t the same as making provable statements. Funny. It seems the truth vs provability distinction is actually the heart of decision theory.
It seems the truth vs provability distinction is actually the heart of decision theory.
I came across this paragraph from Bruno Marchal today, which strikingly reminds me of Vinge’s “Hexapodia as the key insight”:
Talking about Smullyan’s books, I recall that “Forever Undecided” is a
recreational (but ok … not so easy, nor really recreational)
introduction to the modal logic G (the one Solovay showed to be a sound
and complete theory for the Godel-Lob (Gödel, Löb, or Goedel, Loeb)
provability/concistency logic. G is the key for the math in the TOE
approach I am developing. The logic G is the entry for all
arithmetical “Plotinian Hypostases”.
Bruno is a prolific participant on the “everything-list” that I created years ago, but I’ve never been able to understand much of what he talked about. Now I wonder if I should have made a greater effort to learn mathematical logic. Do his writings make sense to you?
EDIT: it seems I was partly mistaken. What I could parse of Marchal’s mathy reasoning was both plausible and interesting, but parsing is quite hard work because he expresses his ideas in a very freaky manner. And there still remain many utterly unparseable philosophical bits.
Thanks for taking another look. BTW, I suggest if people change the content of their comments substantially, it’s better to make a reply to yourself, otherwise those who read LW by scanning new comments will miss the new content.
Sorry, my previous reply was based on a misparsing of your comment, so I deleted it.
So the “mathematical intuition module” can be 100% truthful and evil at the same time, because making true statements isn’t the same as making provable statements. Funny. It seems the truth vs provability distinction is actually the heart of decision theory.
I came across this paragraph from Bruno Marchal today, which strikingly reminds me of Vinge’s “Hexapodia as the key insight”:
Bruno is a prolific participant on the “everything-list” that I created years ago, but I’ve never been able to understand much of what he talked about. Now I wonder if I should have made a greater effort to learn mathematical logic. Do his writings make sense to you?
No, they look like madness.
But logic is still worth learning.
EDIT: it seems I was partly mistaken. What I could parse of Marchal’s mathy reasoning was both plausible and interesting, but parsing is quite hard work because he expresses his ideas in a very freaky manner. And there still remain many utterly unparseable philosophical bits.
Thanks for taking another look. BTW, I suggest if people change the content of their comments substantially, it’s better to make a reply to yourself, otherwise those who read LW by scanning new comments will miss the new content.