Exactly. In each moment, the world is exactly as it is and can’t be anyway other than how we find it. Then it’s the next moment and the world is no longer the same as it was the moment before, yet is still however it is in that moment and no other way. The world is constantly changing from moment to moment, but always changing into exactly what it is.
This statement would be false is, for example, we discovered that people could change other’s perceptions of the world by expecting them to be different and taking no other action.
I’m guessing Gordon is referring to a class of things in the category of “attempted telekinesis”, where people have the implicit expectation that it is possible to change something by just willing it—at a sufficiently subtle or implicit level that it persists unnoticed even if the person would never endorse it explicitly. The curse of the counterfactual is another description of this kind of thing. And the kind of “faith” he’s describing is (I’m guessing, from having some familiarity with a similar thing) a kind of mental move that cuts through this type of mistake, by remembering implicitly that which is also believed explicitly.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what the “attempted telekinesis” post is talking about…
The “curse of the counterfactual” post, I also don’t really understand. It’s about a… therapy technique? For people who are fixated on certain events in their past?
It seems like this whole discussion is based on using words like “faith” in weird ways, and making statements that sound profound but are actually trivial or tautological (like “the world is exactly as it is”).
Maybe it would help to ask this directly: is “faith” here being used in anything at all like the ordinary sense of the word? (Or, any of the ordinary senses of the word?) Or is this a case of “we’re talking about a weird new concept, but we’re going to use a commonplace word for it”?
You wrote “the world will always be exactly as it is.” I don’t see the difference.
Compare, the world will be exactly as it has been in the past, with the world will always be exactly as it is in this moment
Exactly. In each moment, the world is exactly as it is and can’t be anyway other than how we find it. Then it’s the next moment and the world is no longer the same as it was the moment before, yet is still however it is in that moment and no other way. The world is constantly changing from moment to moment, but always changing into exactly what it is.
What would it mean for this to be false?
This statement would be false is, for example, we discovered that people could change other’s perceptions of the world by expecting them to be different and taking no other action.
So… are you just saying that reality exists, and is not merely shaped by our perceptions?
This is one of the bedrock ideas of LW-style rationality, isn’t it? And what does it have to do with “faith”…?
I’m guessing Gordon is referring to a class of things in the category of “attempted telekinesis”, where people have the implicit expectation that it is possible to change something by just willing it—at a sufficiently subtle or implicit level that it persists unnoticed even if the person would never endorse it explicitly. The curse of the counterfactual is another description of this kind of thing. And the kind of “faith” he’s describing is (I’m guessing, from having some familiarity with a similar thing) a kind of mental move that cuts through this type of mistake, by remembering implicitly that which is also believed explicitly.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what the “attempted telekinesis” post is talking about…
The “curse of the counterfactual” post, I also don’t really understand. It’s about a… therapy technique? For people who are fixated on certain events in their past?
It seems like this whole discussion is based on using words like “faith” in weird ways, and making statements that sound profound but are actually trivial or tautological (like “the world is exactly as it is”).
Maybe it would help to ask this directly: is “faith” here being used in anything at all like the ordinary sense of the word? (Or, any of the ordinary senses of the word?) Or is this a case of “we’re talking about a weird new concept, but we’re going to use a commonplace word for it”?