jchan
I wrote up the following a few weeks ago in a document I shared with our solstice group, which seems to independently parallel G Gordon Worley III’s points:
To- | morrow can be brighter than [1]
to- | day, although the night is cold [2]
the | stars may seem so very far
a- | way… [3]
But | courage, hope and reason burn,
in | every mind, each lesson learned, [4]
[5] | shining light to guide to our way,
[6] | make tomorrow brighter than [7]
to- | day....It’s weird that the comma isn’t here, but rather 1 beat later.
The unnecessary syncopation on “night is cold” is all but guaranteed to throw people off.
If this is supposed to rhyme with “today” from before, it falls flat because “today” is not really at the end of the line, despite the way it’s written.
A rhyme is set up here with “burn”/”learned,” but there is no analogous rhyme in the first stanza.
It really feels like there should be an unstressed pickup syllable here, based on the expectation set by all the previous measures.
Same here.
The stanza should really end here, but it goes on for another measure. (A 9-measure phrase? Who does that?)
To clarify some of these points:
1 & 3: There’s a mismatch between the poetic grouping of words and the rhythmical grouping, which is probably why bgaesop stumbles at that spot. This mismatch is made obvious by writing out the words according to the rhythmical grouping, as above.
2: The “official” version has “night is cold” on a downbeat with the rhythm “16th, 8th, quarter”, which is a very unusual rhythm. Notice that in the live recording here, the group attempts the syncopated rhythm the first time, but stumbles into “the stars may seem...”, and then reverts to the much more natural rhythm “8th, 8th, dotted-8th” in all subsequent iterations.
7: Mozart’s Musical Joke makes fun of bad compositions by starting off with a 7-measure phrase. Phrases are usually in powers or 2 or “nice” composite numbers like 6 or 12; a large prime number like 7 is silly because it can’t be imagined as having any internal regularity. You could maybe get away with 9 if it can be thought of as 3 3-measure subphrases, but this song doesn’t do that.
In my opinion, a good singalong song must have very low or zero tolerance for any irregularities in rhyme or rhythm. In LW jargon, if you think of the song as a stream of data which people are trying to predict in real time, you want them to quickly form an accurate, low-Kolmogorov-complexity model of the whole song based on just a small amount of input at the beginning.
(I’ve always hated singing “the bombs” in the Star-Spangled Banner!)
You are forced to trust what others tell you.
The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that non-fiction at least purports to be true, while fiction doesn’t. I can decide whether I want to trust what Herodotus says, but it’s meaningless to speak of “trusting” the Sherlock Holmes stories because they don’t make any claims about the world. Imagining that they do is where the fallacy comes in.
For example, kung-fu movies give a misleading impression of how actual fights work, not because the directors are untrustworthy or misinformed, but because it’s more fun than watching realistic fights, and they’re optimizing for that, not for realism.
In my experience, Americans are actually eager to talk to strangers and make friends with them if and only if they have some good reason to be where they are and talk to those people besides making friends with people.
A corollary of this is that if anyone at an [X] gathering is asked “So, what got you into [X]?” and answers “I heard there’s a great community around [X]”, then that person needs to be given the cold shoulder and made to feel unwelcome, because otherwise the bubble of deniability is pierced and the lemon spiral will set in, ruining it for everyone else.
However, this is pretty harsh, and I’m not confident enough in this chain of reasoning to actually “gatekeep” people like this in practice. Does this ring true to you?
To make it slightly more concrete, we could say: one copy is put in a red room, and the other in a green room; but at first the lights are off, so both rooms are pitch black. I wake up in the darkness and ask myself: when I turn on the light, will I see red or green?
There’s something odd about this question. “Standard LessWrong Reductionism” must regard it as meaningless, because otherwise it would be a question about the scenario that remains unanswered even after all physical facts about it are known, thus refuting reductionism. But from the perspective of the test subject, it certainly seems like a real question.
Can we bite this bullet? I think so. The key is the word “I”—when the question is asked, the asker doesn’t know which physical entity “I” refers to, so it’s unsurprising that the question seems open even though all the physical facts are known. By analogy, if you were given detailed physical data of the two moons of Mars, and then you were asked “Which one is Phobos and which one is Deimos?”, you might not know the answer, but not because there’s some mysterious extra-physical fact about them.
So far so good, but now we face an even tougher bullet: If we accept quantum many-worlds and/or modal realism (as many LWers do), then we must accept that all probability questions are of this same kind, because there are versions of me elsewhere in the multiverse that experience all possible outcomes.
Unless we want to throw out the notion of probabilities altogether, we’ll need some way of understanding self-location problems besides dismissing them as meaningless. But I think the key is in recognizing that probability is ultimately in the map, not the territory, however real it may seem to us—i.e. it is a tool for a rational agent to achieve its goals, and nothing more.
Here’s the way I understand it: A low-entropy state takes fewer bits to describe, and a high-entropy state takes more. Therefore, a high-entropy state can contain a description of a low-entropy state, but not vice-versa. This means that memories of the state of the universe can only point in the direction of decreasing entropy, i.e. into the past.
One time, a bunch of particularly indecisive friends had started an email thread in order to arrange a get-together. Several of them proposed various times/locations but nobody expressed any preferences among them. With the date drawing near, I broke the deadlock by saying something like “I have consulted the omens and determined that X is the most auspicious time/place for us to meet.” (I hope they understood I was joking!) I have also used coin-flips or the hash of an upcoming Bitcoin block for similar purposes.
I think the sociological dynamic is something like: Nobody really cares what we coordinate on, but they do care about (a) not wanting to be seen as unjustifiably grabbing social status by imposing a single choice on everyone else, and (b) not wanting to accept lower status by going along with someone else’s preference. So, to coordinate, we defer the choice to some “objective” external process, so that nobody’s social status is altered by it.
An example where this didn’t work: The Gregorian calendar took centuries to be adopted throughout Europe, despite being justified by “objective” astronomical data, because non-Catholic countries thought of it as a “papal imposition” whose acceptance would imply acceptance of the Pope’s authority over the whole Christian church. (Much better to stick with Julius Caesar’s calendar instead!)
For an outdoor ceremony, you’ll want to avoid open flames because (a) the wind might blow them out, and (b) they’ll attract bugs that die in the flame. Instead you can use lanterns like these. (Peel off the branding sticker for a cleaner look.) The aesthetic ends up being more rugged/industrial than fancy/refined.
Practical considerations when using these lanterns:
The glass window and the upper surface of the lantern get extremely hot (enough to boil water, at least). Use an oven mitt to manipulate these parts.
For this reason, opening and closing the window is cumbersome. To light the lantern or transfer the flame, use a thin bamboo skewer that you can insert through the gap in the top of the lantern. When you’re done with the skewer, douse it in a jar of sand (not water, so you can reuse it).
This method also loses the “Candle #1 [being] the one lighting Candle #2, rather than vice-versa” distinction.
What does the skewer itself symbolize? Perhaps “the generations who died carrying #1 forward to #2 without ever seeing the result” (I dunno, I just made that up now; maybe it doesn’t need to symbolize anything.)
The flame can be extinguished by pushing down the top of the lantern (using an oven mitt) into its “collapsed” position, and then placing an inverted glass bowl on top of it for 3-5 seconds to choke off its oxygen supply. (Glass, rather than ceramic or metal, so that you can see when the flame has gone out.) Then un-collapse the lantern, again using the oven mitt. (See the video on the Amazon page for a demo of collapsing/uncollapsing.)
Or, you can blow sharply through the top of the lantern, but this is difficult if you’re wearing a mask.
If you’ve opened the window in order to pour wax from the candle, collapsing+uncollapsing is the easiest way to re-close the window.
I highly recommend Val Plumwood’s essay Tasteless: towards a food-based approach to death for a “green-according-to-green” perspective.
Plumwood would turn the “deep atheism” framing on its head, by saying in effect “No, you (the rationalist) are the real theist”. The idea is that even if you’ve rejected Cartesian/Platonic dualism in metaphysics, you might still cling for historical reasons to a metaethical-dualist view that a “real monist” would reject, i.e. the dualism between the evaluator and the evaluated, or between the subject and object of moral values. Plumwood (I think) would say that even the “yin” (acceptance of nature) framing is missing the mark, because it still assumes a distinction between the one doing the accepting and the nature being accepted, positing that they simply happen to be aligned through some fortunate circumstance, rather than being one and the same thing.
This is a fair point but I think not the whole story. The events that I’m used to (not just LW and related meetups, but also other things that happen to attract a similar STEM-heavy crowd) are generally held in cafes/bars/parks where nobody has to pay anything to put on the event, so it seems like financial slack isn’t a factor in whether those events happen or not.
Could it be an issue of organizers’ free time? I don’t think it’s particularly time-consuming to run a meetup, especially if you’re not dealing with money and accounting, though I could be wrong.
We might also consider the nature of the activity. One can’t very well meditate in a bar, but parks are still an option, albeit less comfortable than a yoga studio. But isn’t it worth accepting the discomfort for the sake of bringing in more people? Depends on what you’re trying to do, I guess.
I have a vague memory of a dream which had a lasting effect on my concept of personal identity. In the dream, there were two characters who each observed the same event from different perspectives, but were not at the time aware of each other’s thoughts. However, when I woke up, I equally remembered “being” each of those characters, even though I also remembered that they were not the same person at the time. This showed me that it’s possible for two separate minds to merge into one, and that personal identity is not transitive.
This “trying to convince” is where the discussion will inevitably lead, at least if Alice and Bob are somewhat self-aware. After the object-level issues have been tabled and the debate is now about whether Alice is really on Bob’s side, Bob will view this as just another sophisticated trick by Alice. In my experience, Bob-as-the-Mule can only be dislodged when someone other than Alice comes along, who already has a credible stance of sincere friendship towards him, and repeats the same object-level points that Alice made. Only then will Bob realize that his conversation with Alice had been Cassandra/Mule.
(Example I’ve heard: “At first I was indifferent about whether I should get the COVID vaccine, but then I heard [detestable left-wing personalities] saying I should get it, so I decided not to out of spite. Only when [heroic right-wing personality] told me it was safe did I get it.”)
It’s also nice to be able to charge up in a place where directly plugging in your device would be inconvenient or would risk theft, e.g. at a busy cafe where the only outlet is across the room from your table.
What exactly did you do with the candles? I’ve seen pictures and read posts mentioning the fact that candles are used at solstice events, but I’m having trouble imagining how it works without being logistically awkward. E.g.:
Where are the candles stored before they’re passed out to the audience?
At what point are the candles passed out? Do people get up from their seats, go get a candle, and then return to their seats, or do you pass around a basket full of candles?
When are the candles initially lit? Before or after they’re distributed?
When are the candles extinguished during the “darkening” phase? How does each person know when to extinguish their own candle?
Is there a point later when people can ditch their candles? Otherwise, it must be annoying to have to hold a lit candle throughout the whole “brightening” phase.
What happens to the candles at the end?
I think most non-experts still have only a vague understanding of what cryptocurrency actually is, and just mentally lump together all related enterprises into one big category—which is reinforced by the fact that people involved in one kind of business will tend to get involved in others as well. FTX is an exchange, Alameda is a fund, and FTT is a currency, and each of these things could theoretically exist apart from the others, but a layperson will point at all of them and say “FTX” in the same way as one might refer to a PlayStation console as “the Nintendo.”
Legally speaking this is nonsense, but when we’re talking about “social context,” a lack of clarity in the common understanding of what exactly these businesses do might provide an opening for self-deception on the part of the people running them, regarding what illegal activities are “socially acceptable” in their field.
The more resources people in a community have, the easier it is for them to run events that are free for the participants. The tech community has plenty of money and therefore many tech events are free.
This applies to “top-down funded” events, like a networking thing held at some tech startup’s office, or a bunch of people having their travel expenses paid to attend a conference. There are different considerations with regard to ideological messages conveyed through such events (which I might get into in another post), but this is different from the central example of a “tech/finance/science bubble event” that I’m thinking of, which is “a bunch of people meeting in a cafe/bar/park”.
Or alternatively, do it the way the church does and have no entrance fee and ask for donations during the event.
I would indeed have found this less off-putting, though I’m not sure exactly why.
Really helpful to hear an on-the-ground perspective!
(I do live in America—Austin specifically.)
I don’t think this issue is specific to spirituality; these are just the most salient examples I can think of where it’s been dealt with for a long time and explicitly discussed in ancient texts. (For a non-spiritual example, according to Wikipedia the Platonic Academy didn’t charge fees either, though I doubt they left any surviving writings explaining why.)
How would you respond to someone who says “I can easily pay the recommended donation of $20 but I don’t think this event/activity is worth nearly as much as you seem to think I should consider it worth, so I’m going to pay only $5 so that it’s still positive-on-net for me to be here”? In other words, pay-what-you-want as opposed to pay-what-you-can.
If I were in your position I’d probably welcome such a person at first, but if they keep coming back while still paying only $5 I might be inclined to think negatively of them, or pressure them to either pay more or leave. Which also seems like a bad thing, so maybe it’s best to collect donations anonymously so that nobody feels pressured.
The problem is that the functions of “doing X” and “convincing people that doing X is worth” are often being served simultaneously by the same activities, and are difficult to disentangle.
Maybe we are anthropically more likely to find ourselves in places with low komolgorov complexity descriptions. (“All possible bitstrings, in order” is not a good law of physics, just because it contains us somewhere).
Another way of thinking about this, which amounts to the same thing: Holding the laws of physics constant, the Solomonoff prior will assign much more probability to a universe that evolves from a minimal-entropy initial state, than to one that starts off in thermal equilibrium. In other words:
Description 1: The laws of physics + The Big Bang
Description 2: The laws of physics + some arbitrary configuration of particles
Description 1 is much shorter than Description 2, because the Big Bang is much simpler to describe than some arbitrary configuration of particles. Even after the heat-death of the universe, it’s still simpler to describe it as “the Big Bang, 10^zillion years on” rather than by exhaustive enumeration of all the particles.
This dispenses with the “paradox” of Boltzmann Brains, and Roger Penrose’s puzzle about why the Big Bang had such low entropy despite its overwhelming improbability.
Good to know that this was useful. I hadn’t thought of this meetup as “journalism,” but I suppose it was in a sense.
Same here.
This suggests an interesting idea: A charity drive for the week leading up to Petrov Day, on condition that the funds will be publicly wasted if anyone pushes the button (e.g. by sending bitcoin to a dead-end address, or donating to two opposing politicians’ campaigns).