this is something i thought of, that rationality shouldn’t have any axioms, but then wasn’t really sure that it hadn’t (cause it felt to me that it does). so i asked the question to see what people think.
for example, how do you view this phrase “what could be destroyed by the truth should be”? is it an axiom?
for example, how do you view this phrase “what could be destroyed by the truth should be”? is it an axiom?
No. It’s an expression of one of what Eliezer calls the “virtues of rationality”. But the virtues aren’t axioms—which, incidentally, is what the twelfth and final virtue is all about.
this is something i thought of, that rationality shouldn’t have any axioms
It not only shouldn’t, it can’t—as I said, rationality just isn’t the sort of thing that has “axioms”. (Namely, it’s not a formal system.)
“Rationality” isn’t the kind of thing that has “axioms”.
Reading the Sequences may help you.
this is something i thought of, that rationality shouldn’t have any axioms, but then wasn’t really sure that it hadn’t (cause it felt to me that it does). so i asked the question to see what people think.
for example, how do you view this phrase “what could be destroyed by the truth should be”? is it an axiom?
No. It’s an expression of one of what Eliezer calls the “virtues of rationality”. But the virtues aren’t axioms—which, incidentally, is what the twelfth and final virtue is all about.
It not only shouldn’t, it can’t—as I said, rationality just isn’t the sort of thing that has “axioms”. (Namely, it’s not a formal system.)