Not sure about studies, seems more like a useful cultural thing, one of those traditions whose internal justifications have nothing to do with the reason they are useful:
In this case it is probably about having a balanced diet with enough calories, vitamins, minerals etc. It is probably far from optimal, but a good-enough simple advice an average human can follow.
I was tempted to downvote your post, but refrained, seeing how much effort you put into it. Sadly, it seems to miss the point of non-realism entirely, at least the way I understand it. I am not a realist, and have been quite vocal about my views here. Admittedly, they are rather more radical than those of many here. Mostly out of necessity, since once you become skeptical about one realist position, then to be consistent you have to keep decompartmentalizing until the notions of reality, truth and existence become nothing more than useful models. This obviously applies to normative claims, as well, and so cognitivism is not wrong, but meaningless.
if anti-realism is true, then it can’t also be true that we should believe that anti-realism is true
Without a better description of the “you” in this setup, I doubt one can fruitfully answer this question. In general, however, my preferred resolution to the Fermi paradox is that there is no intelligent life out there because there isn’t one even here, on Earth. Because the notion of life abstracted from “self-reproducing proteins” loses its coherency. But, as a fellow chemical reaction, I am looking forward to other views.
Why are you worried about egg consumption specifically?
I would like to see some concrete examples of this DDDiscourse. And with fewer Zs :)
Great! Well done! Noticing your own emotions is a great step most aspiring rationalists lack.
I don’t even know where to begin imagining what a lack of objective reality looks like
Well. Now you have stumbled upon another standard fallacy, argument from the failure of imagination. If you look up various non-realist epistemologies, it could be a good start.
I think I’m doing better and being more rational than most God-believers. That’s why I consider myself a pretty skilled rationalist!
Uh. Depends on how you define being rational. If you follow Eliezer and define it as winning, then there are many believers that are way ahead of you.
I don’t want to get into this discussion now, I’ve said enough about my views on the topic in other threads. Certainly “the heavily experimentally demonstrated hypothesis that the universe runs on math” is a vague enough statement to not even be worth challenging, too much wiggle room.
I meant that a believer in God and supernatural in general is an easy target for a non-believer armed with the standard arguments of atheism.
LessWrong has the effect of gradually making people lose belief in God, and move beyond the whole frame of arguing about God to all kinds of interesting new framings and new arguments (e.g. simulation universes, decision theories, and AI alignment).
Yes and no. That’s how I moved from being an atheist to being an agnostic, given the options above. There are just too many “rational” possibilities instrumentally indistinguishable from God.
I like to think that my deep beliefs all have specific referents to not be demolishable, so it’s hard for me to know where to start looking for one that doesn’t. Feel free to propose ideas. But if I don’t personally struggle with the weakness that I’m helping others overcome, that seems ok too.
I call it the folly of a bright dilettante. You are human with all the human failings, which includes deeply held mind projection fallacies. A deeply held belief feels like an unquestionable truth from the inside, so much so, we are unlikely to even notice that it’s just a belief, and defend it against anyone who questions it. If you want an example, I’ve pointed out multiple times that privileging the model of objective reality (the map/territory distinction) over other models is one of those ubiquitous beliefs. Now that you have read this sentence, pause for a moment and notice your emotions about it. Really, take a few seconds. List them. Now compare it with the emotions a devout person would feel when told that God is just a belief. If you are honest with yourself, then you are likely to admit that there is little difference. Actually, a much likelier outcome is skipping the noticing entirely and either ignoring the uncomfortable question as stupid/naive/unenlightened, or rushing to come up with arguments defending your belief. So, if you have never demolished your own deeply held belief, and went through the emotional anguish of reframing your views unflinchingly, you are not qualified to advise others how to do it.
A believer in God is an easy target. Can you find a deep belief in something that you are holding and go through the same steps you outlined above for Stephanie?
I do have a PhD in Physics, classical General Relativity specifically. But you wanted something who adheres to MWI, and that is not me.
Some thoughts from Sean Carroll on the topic of Quantum Immortality:
And this one from Scott Aaronson:
Celebrity or not, both are quite likely to reply to a polite yet anxious email, since they can actually relate to your worries, if maybe not on the same topic.
You’ve been basilisked. There is no empirical evidence for MWI, but a number of physicists do believe that it can be something related to reality, with some heavy modifications, since, as stated, it contradicts General Relativity. Sean Carroll, an expert in both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, is one of them. Consider reading his blog. His latest article about the current (pitiful) state of fundamental research in Quantum Mechanics, can be found in the New York Times. His book on the topic is coming out in a couple of days, and it is guaranteed to be a highly entertaining and insightful read, which might also alleviate some of your worries.
Not trying to win anything, but maybe my old post can be of some interest: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PDFJPxPope2aDtmpQ/a-simple-exercise-in-rationality-rephrase-an-objective
Berkeley thought that anything exists only because God is perceiving it, and if God stops perceiving it, that thing disappears.
That sounds remarkably perceptive, for some reasonable definition of God. In quantum mechanics, or, rather, the classical measurements of it, we can only observe what’s entangled with us. If somehow a state got untangled, we’d stop perceiving it. If you subscribe to the MWI, you are living with multiple copies of yourself which, for you, don’t even exist because you can never perceive them, or even infer much about them. (There is a wrinkle there, gravity doesn’t fit into the picture, but then it doesn’t fit into any quantum picture.)
As for the appropriate media, basic PDF and paper copies are indeed the safest bets. Also, pure HTML5 might survive, even if JS goes out of fashion. Also, hosting is always an issue. Then again, most published works, especially theses, do not deserve a ten-year lifespan, though yours might be different.
Trying to understand your points… Possibly incorrectly.
Technique: Quantum Walk: set a stretch goals and Work backwards from your goal.
Ask the Oracle: seems like you suggest working on deconfusion.
Bias: Sunk Meaning: Meaning is in the map.
If you are trying to reach those who think that “If Oswald had not shot Kennedy, then someone else would have” is not a confused question, good luck!
Abandoning Good vs Bad is a useful step. I remember being there. It’s the first step toward abandoning other concepts and paradigms that are not useful as absolutes, such as Better vs Worse, True vs False and Right vs Wrong. And eventually Exists vs does not exist.
A better question might be, those people who think (and are right) that they could most helpfully contribute to alignment research, and also think that it is the most important issue they could be working on, yet are doing something else, why are they doing something else? (And I doubt that with these caveats you will find 50 people like that.)
Lost purposes is a common occurrence, definitely. And it looks like you had provided that feedback without waiting in the open loop until your customer give you the feedback. Your motivation was, or appeared to be based on a broken causal chain or something, but the resulting action was something that ought to have been built-in from the start: closing the loop early.
Seems like we speak different languages, or come from different epistemologies, since we seem to be talking past each other. The meta-model I was talking about is a rather universal one: close the loop whenever possible and don’t expect much from an open loop. I don’t understand the chain-1 to chain-2 argument. Then again, I find the whole idea of causal chains underwhelming. Maybe they have something to show in terms of having solved problems that are intractable otherwise, but if so, I am not aware of any,