Why do you consider
You’re smart. You should go to college.
among these? It seems like the odd one out.
Why do you consider
You’re smart. You should go to college.
among these? It seems like the odd one out.
Mine lacked one detail yours had; the actual walking. In classic dream-logic, the man was briefly in a walking pose on a streetlike object, then instantly at the door of the drugstore, opening it and turning in.
On the other hand, in my image he had white hair and was nearly bald. So clearly I’m not ‘winning’ in a ‘how much detail can you omit’ contest.
That theme came back in Children of the Sky, which was published after this post. It partially explains the Zone of Thought, demonstrating that it is not, in fact, a consilient monistic world.
Your read was probably one of several things which was intended. Vinge chose to focus on a different thing.
Not really. If both particles are widely-spread, then they will remain widely spread. Say the heavy particle is evenly distributed across the interval [0,2] and the light particle spread evenly across [0,3]. Then the resulting system will have both particles spread evenly across [0,2.0] (approximately; the large particle will move out somewhat), and the light particle will be approx. 50% more dense at each of those points.
I don’t know what metric (method of measuring distance) you use for configuration space. But assume it’s the standard, familiar Euclidean distance metric. Then if you have one particle in two blobs separated by 1 unit, it’s 1 unit distant. If you have two, it’s now separated by 1 unit along each of two axes, so it’s sqrt(2) distant. For N particles in two blobs, the blobs are sqrt(N) distant.
You tried to define knowledge as simply ‘justified belief’. The example scientific theory was believed to be true, and that belief was justified by the evidence then available. But, as we now know, that belief was false. By your definition, however, they can still be said to have ‘known’ the theory was true.
That is the problem with the definition not including the ‘true’ caveat.
It is a personal peeve when any explanation of the Bell Inequality fails to mention the determinist Big Loophole: It rules out nearly all local hidden-variable theories, except those for which the entire universe is ruled by hidden variables. If you reject the assumption of counterfactual definiteness (the idea that there is a meaningful answer to the question “what answer would I have gotten, had I conducted a different experiment?”), local hidden variable theories are not ruled out. This leads to superdeterminism and theories which assume that, through either hidden variables stretching back to t=0 or backwards-in-time signals, the universe accounted for the measurement and the result was determined to match.
This is, in fact, what I held to be the most likely total explanation for years, until I better understood both its implications and MWI. Which, in fact, also rejects counterfactual definiteness. MWI does it one better; it rejects factual definiteness, the idea that there is a well-defined answer to the question “What answer did I get?”, since in alternate worlds you got different answers.
No, Newton’s theory of gravitation does not provide knowledge. Belief in it is no longer justified; it contradicts the evidence now available.
However, prior to relativity, the existing evidence justified belief in Newton’s theory. Whether or not it justified 100% confidence is irrelevant; if we require 100% justified confidence to consider something knowledge, no one knows or can know a single thing.
So, using the definition you gave, physicists everywhere (except one patent office in Switzerland) knew Newton’s theory to be true, because the belief “Newton’s theory is accurate” was justified. However, we now know it to be false.
Currently, we have a different theory of gravity. Belief in it is justified by the evidence. By your standard, we know it to be true. That’s patently ridiculous, however, since physicists still seek to expand or disprove it.
I am fairly certain I understand your position better than you yourself do. You have eliminated the distinction between belief and knowledge entirely, thus rendering the word knowledge useless. Tabooing is not an argument; this conclusion is not valid.
You have repeatedly included in your argument false statements, even under your own interpretation. You have also misinterpreted quotes to back up your argument, such as misunderstanding the statement
In our terminology, a probability is something that we assign, in order to represent a state of knowledge.
To mean that knowledge is a probability, rather than the actual meaning of ‘probability quantifies how much we know that we do not know’.
You are in a state of confusion, though you may not have realized it, and I have no interest in continuing to point out the flawed foundations if you will ignore the demonstration. I am done here.
N(N-1)/2 is O(N^2), which is not substantially better. Particularly to the soul of a computer scientist, which largely ignores constant factors anyway.
You have an extra a in aaaronson.
Hello, I am a human who goes by Auroch, VAuroch, or some variation thereon on most internet sites. I have what I consider a healthy degree of respect for how easy it is to attach an online name to a meatspace human, so I prefer to avoid providing information about myself. (Some might consider this paranoia. I would hope that such people are in shorter supply here.) I will say that I am a recent college graduate in the Pacific Northwest, who majored in Math/Theoretical Computer Science.
I have found LessWrong repeatedly, and have for most of its history occasionally had binges of reading. However, other concerns predominated until I found myself without other immediate responsibilities (viz. unemployed).
I approach things from three main viewpoints; as a programmer, as a pure mathematician, and as a game designer (tabletop more than digital; it’s a purer exercise in crafting fun). I haven’t finished all the main sequences as of yet, but have found my beliefs changing less than expected; I was already tending toward the same conclusions as the consensus here, or had reached them independently, for most things I’ve seen discussed. I’m somewhat nervous about this, as I have not had a real chance to Change My Mind and don’t know how I will react when it is appropriate to do so.
I basically agree, we are. What I’m trying to do is to maintain knowledge as a separate thing from belief. I don’t have particular attachment to this definition of knowledge (as pointed out above, “justified true belief” is a little simplistic), but I can’t find any way that jocko’s version is different from straight-up belief.
Areas of my expertise: this. There exists a card game called Eleusis, and a simpler variant , Eleusis Express, which are played with standard playing cards and which were purpose-built for precisely this purpose; simulating the scientific method, with emphasis on the non-incremental regimes of scientific progress. These rules can be found here, Express here, and the BoardGameGeek page for the game is here. Expanding this to larger card numbers, etc. should be an easy modification to make, and I would happily do so if there were interest. I can attest that the game is quite fun.
Except that they are only allowed to intervene if you are going to harm another or yourself.
Comments from 2008 and 2007 are always OB. Early 2009 comments might be OB, but most 2009 are LW.
Took survey. Reminded me that I’ve never had an IQ test; is it worthwhile?
I could and did answer atheist as background. My parents are both inspoken* nonbelievers, though they attended a Unitarian Universalist church for two years when their kids (me included) were young, for the express purpose (explained well after the fact) of exposing us to religion and allowing us to make our own choices.
*The opposite of outspoken.
When I attempt to picture myself in a state of ‘no moral wrongs’, I get myself as I am. Largely, I don’t act morally out of a sense of rightness, but out of enlightened self-interest. If I think I will not be caught, I act basically according to whim.
Your knowledge of the rules of probability is evidence. It’s not evidence specific to this question, but it is evidence for this question, among others.