@felipec's banner p

felipec

unbelief

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1796


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
felipec


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
unbelief

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1796


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


In our case, informations isn't just limited, but artificially limited, i.e. omitted.




Wrong. Information by its very nature is limited. Nobody is "artificially" limiting the information that can fit in one bit, one bit can only fit one bit of information. Period.


This is the foundation of information theory.




The information is indeed still available, just by deriving it from context.




There is no context attached to information. One bit is one bit. You can try to do some clever tricks with two bits, or four bits, but at the end of the day the information is the information.




We both know monday after sunday is next week.




No, we don't. You are assuming where the week starts.




You're making an argument based on information you know is incomplete, and the missing information invalidates it.




All information is incomplete.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If the speaker claimed that 2+2=4 is unequivocally true, he/she is wrong.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Scott Alexander on Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX and Effective Altruism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think you kinda underestimate how easy is to manipulate a grown adult outside of their area of expertise.




Completely agree. I've devoted my previous posts to try to get people to doubt things they assume as 100% certain, and the end result is that no one wants to do that.


It seems pretty clear to me that even the most rational and intelligent people on the planet will believe whatever they want to believe as long as it feels good.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"2+2 = 4" is still actually true in Z4.




But not in 𝐙/4𝐙 (integers modulo 4).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Scott Alexander on Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX and Effective Altruism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But FTX is not crypto. FTX was a mixture of the old and the new, which is precisely why it failed.


The whole point of crypto is to be completely detached from old systems, so there's zero surface of attack from government. If you use pure crypto (no exchange), then you are immune to these kinds of failures.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Scott Alexander on Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX and Effective Altruism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can we consider the possibility that all of this was vaporware?


    

  1. 

    Most people don't know what FTX is
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Most people have no idea who SBF is
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Most people have never heard of EA
    

    4. 



Scott Alexander seems to be devastated by something most people didn't even know was a thing, much less an important thing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Discrete math is as basic as it gets, it’s first semester CS/Electrical/Math/Physics.




Of university. You were taught math before that, weren't you?


It's not "basic math".




Saying logic isn’t part of math but has “a complicated relationship” with math… again, I don’t see what you’re getting at.




That your statement is not quite correct.




Again, the point is that it is convention to assume the common interpretation/ context of a statement when we assess its truth value




"Convention" literally means usually done, not always.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Finally, and most importantly, law in general and international law in particular is much less clearly defined and broadly agreed upon than simple arithmetic over the natural numbers.




This supports my argument. If I demonstrate that a rational agent should doubt something very "clearly defined" such as 2+2=4, then it logically follows that something much less clearly defined should be doubted as well.




if I say “Waffles are better than pancakes, that's as clear as the sky is blue”, would you start arguing that the sky isn't always blue?




Yes. I start with the claims that are more easy to dismantle because I know that people virtually never doubt their beliefs in real time. It would be very hard for me to convince that person that waffles are not necessarily better than pancakes, but it would be easy to dismantle the auxiliary claim.


This person may attempt to find another more unequivocally true auxiliary claim, but I would easily dismantle that too. And sooner or later this person would be forced to realize that it's not easy to find an unequivocally true claim. And if it's not easy to find an unequivocally true claim, perhaps the unequivocally true claim that waffles are better than pancakes is not so unequivocally true.


If a person says "Bob is as racist as Alice", and I show that Alice is not racist, then says, "OK. Bob is as racist as Mary", and I show Mary is not racist, "OK. Bob is as racist as Linda", Linda isn't racist. Wouldn't it make sense to doubt whether or not Bob is actually racist?


Using metaphors to tackle deep philosophical problems isn't even fringe. The notion of a black swan is nowadays common in order to explain that the fact that something has never happened before is not a valid reason to think it will never happen in the future. It tackles the deep philosophical problem of induction.


Instead of saying "as clear as the sky is blue", people in the past used to say "as impossible as a black swan". To say "actually, the fact that we haven't seen a black swan doesn't necessarily mean black swans don't exist" is not pedantry, it's in fact valid reasoning, a deep philosophical notion (problem of induction), and something that should have made people doubt their 100% certainty on "impossible" events.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Bertrand Russel was doing when he proved 1+1=2




No, I don't. In mathematics the word "proof" has a very precise meaning, and anything without a "proof" is held as tentative (i.e. not necessarily true), for example a conjecture.


This entirely depends on the set of axioms you choose as as foundation, and you certainly could choose 1+1=2 as one of those axioms, therefore it's an assumption that doesn't need to be substantiated. But if you get rid of that axiom, then 1+1=2 is held as tentative and thus lacking proof.




much in the same way that the point of "coding Hello World in assembly" is not "coding Hello World in assembly" but "coding Hello World in assembly."




You are making a very obvious assumption there.




Russel was showing that you could lower the "basement" of mathematics and consider it as starting from another foundation deeper down from which you could construct all mathematical knowledge, and to do that he had to build towards mathematics where it already stood.




I know.


Another way to think about it is that he tried to refactor the 1+1=2 axiom into more fundamental axioms. But this work necessitates the possibility that an axiomatic system that doesn't have 1+1=2 as an axiom is tenable. If such a system exists (which I think Bertrand Russell pretty much proved), that means that 1+1=2 does not need to be assumed to be true, it can be inferred.


I call "not assume" "doubt", but it doesn't matter what you call it, the fact is that to write Principia Mathematica Bertrand Russell had to not assume 1+1=2.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If 2+2=4 are elements in a modular ring, it holds true.




Integers modulo 4 (𝐙/4𝐙) is a modular ring which does not contain the number 4.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Then please stop assuming that my uncountable usage of "the concept of arithmetic in general" in that sentence is secretly referring to your countable idea of "a single arithmetic".




Where did I "assume" that in my last comment?




I've clarified my meaning twice now, I'd appreciate it if you actually responded to my argument instead of repeatedly hammering on that initial miscommunication.




I don't know what argument you are talking about. If you are referring to this:


    

  • 

    almost no one uses the notation associated with real-number arithmetic in a way contrary to real-number arithmetic
    

    • 

  • 

    ∴ I refuse to entertain the notion that someone is actually referring to some system of arithmetic incompatible with real-number arithmetic when they use the notation associated with real-number arithmetic, unless they first clarify this
    

    • 



That's not an argument, you are just stating your personal position. You are free to do whatever you want, if you don't want to doubt a particular "unequivocal" claim, then don't. Your personal position doesn't contradict my claim in any way.




Why should there be any doubt in their minds




Because that's what skepticism demands. I assert that 100% certainty on anything is problematic, which is the reason why skepticism exists in the first place.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Of course with skillful redefinition of what '2' and '+' and '2' and '=' and '4' you can make it mean anything you like.




I did not invent abstract algebra, it's a important field in mathematics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You are assuming I'm the one who brought up the 2+2=4 factoid.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Information is always limited. Humans and all rational agents always operate with limited information. There is no omission.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I can guarantee you that Russell used 1+1=2 when calculating his daily expenses even before he formally proved it.




I literally said "it doesn't matter if Bertrand Russell personally doubted it or not".


If I'm not 100% certain a particular chair is not broken, but I sit on it anyway, and you conclude that therefore I believe with 100% certainty that it wasn't broken, you are committing a converse error fallacy.


You cannot read minds, you cannot know why I did sit on that chair, and assuming that you do know is an error in logic.


Even worse is to assume you do know why I checked the chair before sitting on it, and assuming it had nothing to do with my potential doubt.


Doubt is essential in all fields. 100% certainty is extremely dangerous. And I don't see you addressing this at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No. Apples are not oranges. Abstract algebra is a much less known concept than numeral systems. Virtually nobody thinks of that when considering 2+2.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


“This” is that we assume the common interpretation if one exists. The second quoted paragraph explains it.




Which is?




Logic is a part of math.




No. Logic and mathematics have a complicated relationship.




The book is from an undergrad discrete math course I took once, so I pulled the book from the shelf to quote for you.




So it wasn't a "basic math" course, and you don't have an example of a "basic math" textbook covering "this".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I suppose your larger point is true, but not particularly meaningful.




Are you 100% certain of that?




So a statement that seems easy and clear to interpret can actually be misleading when your interlocutor is deliberately trying to confuse and deceive you by omitting key information?




This is a loaded language claim, a rhetoric trick. You are intentionally adding the word "misleading" to prompt an emotional response.


Consider this exchange:


    

  1. 

    If you don't denounce Russia's illegal war of aggression, that makes you a Putin apologist, that's as unequivocally true as 2+2=4
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Actually, 2+2=4 is not unequivocally true
    

    3. 



My claim (2) is not "misleading", and I'm not "deliberately trying to confuse and deceive" anyone, it's the other person who made a false claim (1). The sole objective of me bringing up this abstract algebra notion is to increase doubt on the original claim about Russia sides. The factoid 2+2=4 is not used by me as an end, it's used by somebody else as a means to an end. 2+2=4 is often used as a tool to demonstrate 100% certainty, and it can be dismantled.


Your loaded language claim doesn't apply in this example. We can get rid of the loaded language and make a much more fair, generous and neutral claim:


"A statement that seems easy, clear to interpret, and is obviously 100% certain to be true can actually be not necessarily true when an unrealized assumption is present."


How is this more generous claim not correct?


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-10
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


did you know that Earth has a four corner simultaneous 4-day time cube?




Well, I never assumed it didn't. Mainly because I don't know what that means.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You made this claim:




It's an assumption about the meaning of the question, not an assumption about the actual laws of arithmetic, which are not in question.




The "laws of arithmetic" that are relevant depend 100% on what arithmetic we are talking about, therefore it's imperative to know which arithmetic we are talking about. People assume it's the normal arithmetic and cannot possibly be any other one. There is zero doubt in their minds, and that's the problem I'm pointing out.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				FTX is Rationalism's Chernobyl
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We managed to finish one product against all odds, even with many people jumping ship right before the launch: Nokia N9.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You didn't answer my question.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No. In programming it's literally impossible to include information that wasn't meant to be included. If you have an int to store the weekday, that's all the information stored in that int.


Not having all the information is a huge problem in programming, and historically it has been a big headache to deal with dates and time.


But if a program doesn't need any information other than the weekday, it may use that and nothing more.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That's the field where you would doubt 1+1=2, not because you actually doubt it, but because you expect insight from dispelling that doubt.




It doesn't matter if Bertrand Russell personally doubted it or not, he acted as if it was rational to not believe with 100% certainty something which had not been proven yet, and it was.


The reason he attempted to dispell that doubt, is that absent that proof, it was reasonable to doubt.




It's the same level of abstraction as wondering whether you're actually a brain in a vat.




Which is a valid doubt in philosophy.




In politics or engineering, you can't do that.




You have to doubt in engineering, for the same reason you have to doubt in every field. Bridges have fallen because engineers did not doubt enough.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And the failure to communicate can be entirely on the listening side by assuming a meaning that was never there.


The fact that today people don't understand each other is a huge problem, and worse: people don't want to understand what the other side is actually saying.