Chris_Leong

• Chris_Leong 28 Sep 2020 0:25 UTC

  −11 points

  in reply to: Ruby’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  Well, it was just a game and I had other things to do. Plus I didn’t feel a duty to take it 100% se­ri­ously since, as happy as I was to have the chance to par­ti­ci­pate, I didn’t ac­tu­ally choose to play.

• Chris_Leong 27 Sep 2020 11:14 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  That was a poorly writ­ten post on my part. What I meant was that I was open to ar­gu­ment ei­ther way (“Should I press it or not?). I had de­cided that re­gard­less of whether I pressed it or not I would at least wait un­til other peo­ple had a chance to wake up. So it wasn’t my only rea­son—I hadn’t even re­ally thought about it too much as I was wait­ing for more com­ments.

  Even though it was poorly writ­ten, I’m sur­prised how many peo­ple seem to have mi­s­un­der­stood it as I would have thought it was clear enough as I asked the ques­tion.

San­der Ver­haegh on Quine’s Naturalism

• Chris_Leong 27 Sep 2020 3:32 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Mati_Roy’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  https://​​www.face­book.com/​​case­bash/​​posts/​​10100495197743741?com­ment_id=10100495207174841

• Chris_Leong 27 Sep 2020 1:35 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: philh’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  I looked at the thread and con­sid­ered com­ment­ing here, but not many peo­ple had com­mented, so I figured there wasn’t that much chance of get­ting a re­sponse if I posted here.

• Chris_Leong 27 Sep 2020 1:25 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Mati_Roy’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  Yeah, it wasn’t the LW team, but one of my friends

• Chris_Leong 26 Sep 2020 11:39 UTC

  46 points

  in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  Sorry, I got tricked:

  petrov_day_ad­min_ac­count Septem­ber 26, 2020 11:26 AM Hello Chris_Leong,

  You are part of a smaller group of 30 users who has been se­lected for the sec­ond part of this ex­per­i­ment. In or­der for the web­site not to go down, at least 5 of these se­lected users must en­ter their codes within 30 min­utes of re­ceiv­ing this mes­sage, and at least 20 of these users must en­ter their codes within 6 hours of re­ceiv­ing the mes­sage. To keep the site up, please en­ter your codes as soon as pos­si­ble. You will be asked to com­plete a short sur­vey af­ter­wards.

  What links here?

  • Vanessa Kosoy's comment on Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020 by Ben Pace (26 Sep 2020 13:14 UTC; 15 points)

• Chris_Leong 26 Sep 2020 10:39 UTC

  1 point

  on: Honor­ing Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

  Should I press the but­ton or not? I haven’t pressed the but­ton at the cur­rent time as it would be dis­ap­point­ing to peo­ple if they re­ceived the email, but some­one pressed it while they were still asleep.

• Chris_Leong 20 Sep 2020 1:41 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Ruby’s comment on: One-Boxing

  It’s just meant to be a Wiki ar­ti­cle, not a tag so that when you mouse-over you get a definition

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 1:35 UTC

  LW: 2 AF: 1

  AF

  in reply to: abramdemski’s comment on: Ap­ply­ing the Coun­ter­fac­tual Pri­soner’s Dilemma to Log­i­cal Uncertainty

  I’m cu­ri­ous, do you find this ar­gu­ment for pay­ing in Log­i­cal Coun­ter­fac­tual Mug­ging per­sua­sive? What about the Coun­ter­fac­tual Pri­soner’s Dilemma ar­gu­ment for the ba­sic Coun­ter­fac­tual Mug­ging?

  Another ap­proach is to change the ex­am­ple to re­move the objection

  In­ter­est­ing point about the poker game ver­sion. It’s still a one shot game, so there’s no real rea­son to hide a 0 un­less you think they’re a pretty pow­er­ful pre­dic­tor, but it is always pre­dict­ing some­thing co­her­ent.

  I don’t see how you’re ap­ply­ing CPD to LU

  The claim is that you should pay in the Log­i­cal Coun­ter­fac­tual Pri­soner’s Dilemma and hence pay in Log­i­cal Coun­ter­fac­tual Mug­ging which is the log­i­cally un­cer­tain ver­sion of Coun­ter­fac­tual Mug­ging.

  Sym­met­ric? The origi­nal is already sym­met­ric. But “sym­met­ric” is a con­cept which ap­plies to multi-player games. Coun­ter­fac­tual PD makes PD into a one-player game. Pre­sum­ably you meant “a one-player ver­sion”?

  Edited now. I meant it’s a sym­met­ric ver­sion of coun­ter­fac­tual mug­ging. So not in the game the­ory sense, but just that there is now no differ­ence be­tween heads and tails.

  This is only true if you use clas­si­cal CDT, yeah? Whereas EDT can get $9900 in both cases, pro­vided it be­lieves in a suffi­cient cor­re­la­tion be­tween what it does upon see­ing heads vs tails.

  Point noted. Maybe I should have been more care­ful about spec­i­fy­ing what I was comparing

  Also, why is this posted as a ques­tion?

  Ac­ci­dent. It’s fixed now

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 0:48 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Dagon’s Shortform

  I guess I’ve dis­cussed my per­spec­tive on the is­sue of un­re­al­is­tic hy­po­thet­i­cals here, al­though you’ve already com­mented on that post. Beyond that, Scott Alexan­ders The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World is a great post, but I sus­pect you’ve seen it too.
  
  One ad­di­tional thing which I can add is that this seems re­lated to De­cou­pling vs. Con­tex­tu­al­is­ing norms.
  
  BTW, I cre­ated a wiki page for hy­po­thet­i­cals. I’ve sum­marised some ar­gu­ments on why we should pay at­ten­tion to un­re­al­is­tic hy­po­thet­i­cal, but it’d be use­ful to have some op­pos­ing ar­gu­ments listed there as well.

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 0:36 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Ap­ply­ing the Coun­ter­fac­tual Pri­soner’s Dilemma to Log­i­cal Uncertainty

  Thanks. I’ve added a link to your short­form post

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 0:28 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: ike’s comment on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  I didn’t men­tion a spe­cific self-defeater as that’s been dis­cussed in the com­ments above.

  1. Deny­ing the ex­is­tence of a deeper, un­ob­serv­able re­al­ity or say­ing that speak­ing about it is non­sense is also use­less for any kind of prediction

  2. The Uni­verse Doesn’t Have to Play Nice cap­tures my ob­jec­tions to this kind of reasoning

  3. Just be­cause it is con­ve­nient to use ex­ists in a way that refers to a par­tic­u­lar scope of a mul­ti­verse, doesn’t pre­vent us as treat­ing the whole mul­ti­verse as just a rather un­usual uni­ver­sal and us­ing the term ex­ists nor­mally. But aren’t claims about a mul­ti­verse in­con­sis­tent with your strong ver­ifi­ca­tion­ism?

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 0:22 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: ike’s comment on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  Ok, so you’re only ap­ply­ing the ver­ifi­ca­tion prin­ci­ple to on­tolog­i­cal claims. That is quite a bit crisper than what you wrote be­fore. On the other hand, the ver­ifi­ca­tion prin­ci­ple does feel like an on­tolog­i­cal claim as it is claiming that cer­tain things don’t ex­ist or at least that talk­ing about them is mean­ingless. But how are you defin­ing on­tolog­i­cal?

• Chris_Leong 18 Sep 2020 0:14 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: G Gordon Worley III’s comment on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  Is there any differ­ence?

• Chris_Leong 17 Sep 2020 10:22 UTC

  2 points

  on: Hypotheticals

  Some­one needs to add the ar­gu­ment against hy­po­thet­i­cals that would never oc­cur in the real world.

• Chris_Leong 17 Sep 2020 9:14 UTC

  2 points

  on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  Thanks for writ­ing up an ex­cel­lent Re­duc­tion Ad Ab­sur­dum of ver­ifi­ca­tion­ism. As they say, “One man’s modus po­nens is an­other man’s modus tol­lens”.

  I strongly agree with the claim that it is self-defeat­ing. Here’s an­other weird effect—let’s sup­pose I roll a dice and see that it is a 6. I then erase the in­for­ma­tion from my brain, which then takes us to a po­si­tion where the state­ment is im­pos­si­ble to ver­ify. Does the state­ment then be­come mean­ingless?
  
  Beyond this, I would say that “ex­ists” is a prim­i­tive. If it makes sense to take any­thing as a prim­i­tive, then it makes sense to take “ex­ists” as a prim­i­tive. And the thing with prim­i­tives is that you can’t re­ally define them in any satis­fac­tory sense. In­stead, you can only talk around them.

• Chris_Leong 17 Sep 2020 9:06 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: ike’s comment on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  Ex­clud­ing the ver­ifi­ca­tion prin­ci­ple from it­self feels like a dodge me. I don’t think la­bel­ling it as not a be­lief gets you any­where.

• Chris_Leong 17 Sep 2020 8:58 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: G Gordon Worley III’s comment on: This Ter­ri­tory Does Not Exist

  What do you mean by on­tic vs. on­tolog­i­cal?

• Chris_Leong 16 Sep 2020 23:41 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Ap­ply­ing the Coun­ter­fac­tual Pri­soner’s Dilemma to Log­i­cal Uncertainty

  I would pre­fer if you wrote up your own post ob­ject­ing to the gen­eral frame in which I’m op­er­at­ing in. I don’t feel that this is the right lo­ca­tion to have this dis­cus­sion.