@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
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				FTX is Rationalism's Chernobyl
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A company can be comprised of 99% of geniuses, and 1% idiots at the top and fail.


All it takes is 1 idiot.


I was in Nokia with the most elite team of open source programmers and hardware engineers I've ever seen in Nokia's Skunk Works at the height of Nokia's success. Our software was way better than Android and had features many phones didn't get for more than a decade, and some they still don't have. The future was bright.


It didn't matter: one person at the top ruined everything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s not a fallacy because I assume the content of his argument is not the content of your argument.




But you are assuming his argument is valid merely on the basis of his credentials.


And you are assuming my argument is invalid merely on the basis of my credentials.


That's a fallacy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The statement "in normal arithmetic 2+2=4" is true, but "2+2 is always 4" is false.


You can dismiss semantics all you want, but the meaning of the statements we make matter, and the certainty we have about the meaning of the statements other people make do matter.


Just this week I debated a person who was 100% certain he knew what anti-Semitism was (he didn't), what a dictionary was (he didn't), and what all the words in the definitions I presented to him meant (he didn't).


In my view 100% certainty is a problem.


I believe questioning the meaning of 2+2 might help some people question other unquestionably true beliefs.


Are you 100% certain it's impossible for this to happen?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But 22+2 can be 0.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


ugh, this guy really want to show me how smart he thinks he is




Yes, but I don't care about their reaction or their opinion of me.


I've never seen anybody seriously question any of their core beliefs in real time. But these notions plant a seed which eventually they can't avoid. Sleep is important in mulling these down.


In fact, I remember mentioning to somebody the claim "all models are wrong, but some are useful", which was immediately dismissed (since in an argument nobody wants to be wrong), but some time later the same person made the exact same claim to me. He forgot I was the one who mentioned it, but more importantly: he forgot that initially he immediately dismissed it.


I bet many people will forget this article and dismiss it as pedantry, but the next time someone says "this is as true as 2+2=4" they might think twice. These two things are not exclusionary.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is your claim:




This is usually covered in basic math courses or textbooks.




What is "this" in this context?


Also, you claimed that "this" is taught in basic math textbooks, but you din't provide an example of such textbook, you provided one of logic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm using "the laws of arithmetic" as a general term to refer to the rules of all systems of arithmetic in common usage, where a "system of arithmetic" refers to the symbolic statements derived from any given set of consistent axioms and well-defined notations.




There are no axioms that apply to all arithmetics. There are no such "laws".


Go ahead and try come up with one "law". I'm fairly certain I can point out an arithmetic where it doesn't apply.


There's a reason these fall under the umbrella of abstract algebra.


Also, you seem to be conflating "integer arithmetic" with normal arithmetic. 2.5 + 2.1 is not integer arithmetic, and yet follows the traditional arithmetic everyone knows. I'm not even sure if normal arithmetic has a standard name, I just call it "normal arithmetic" to distinguish it from all the other arithmetics. Integer arithmetic is just a subset.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's kind of an accurate summary. But doesn't that apply everywhere in modern discourse? People assume that Kanye West said X, but "X" doesn't necessarily mean X.


Words like "censorship", "racism", "war", "vaccine" are used in different ways all the time, and when people with agendas use them, they feel 100% there is only one meaning.


So "censorship" doesn't always mean censorship.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah? What is your most fundamental belief that you have questioned this year?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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




There is no "arithmetic", there's multiple arithmetics. You are assuming that the "laws" of one particular arithmetic apply to all arithmetics, which is not true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Based on his reputation and without reading what he wrote, no I don’t think he was being dishonest.




That's literally an argument from authority fallacy.


Plenty of philosophers have doubted even the most fundamental concepts of everything, including reality itself. Solipsism is a serious philosophical concept, which includes doubting that 1+1 is necessarily 2, and Bertrand Russell entertained that possibility.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Except my post proves that's not the case. Again: I did not change any the base in my post.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Literally everyone makes assumptions whenever they have literally any thought or take literally any action.




Yes, but not everyone realizes they are making an assumption. Just like virtually nobody realizes they are making an assumption when answering the 2+2 question.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If it was three hours, then I wouldn't answer 1:00 like you're suggesting either. I'd say "01:00 the next day" because time isn't truly modular




But your clock would read 01:00.


We use this concept in programming all the time. If the week ends in Sunday we don't say that the day after that is Monday the next week, it's Monday (this doesn't change if the week ends in Saturday). In fact, many people consider Friday 23:00+02:00 to still be Friday night.




I'm not sure about more esoteric ones, but in spherical and hyperbolic geometries pairs of lines with constant distance simply don't exist.




Yes, I meant "two straight lines that indefinitely extended in a two-dimensional plane that are both perpendicular to a third line", like in this picture, which are kind of parallel. The point is the standard concept of "parallel" more or less only exists in Euclidean geometries.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In the real world people do misinterpret, and they rarely (if ever) follow Grice's razor. They argue about what Trump said, rather than what Trump meant.


Semantics is in my opinion a huge problem in modern discourse. Russia claims what they did in Ukraine was a "special military operation", but other people claim it's a "war". Which is it? Meaning does matter.


Even in deep philosophical debates meaning is everything. A debate about "free will" entirely depends on what opposing sides mean by "free will", and there's at least three different definitions.


You say the meaning of meaning is "not extremely deep", but does it have to be? People fail extremely basic problems of logic (90% fail the Wason selection task), basic problems of probability (like the Monty Hall problem), I've also setup my own problems of probability of probability, and guess what?: most people get it wrong.


Maybe some ideas are too simple for you, but what about other people perhaps not so intellectually gifted? My objective is to arrive to a concept that even people with an IQ of 80 would be able to understand, and I'm not sure they would understand what modular arithmetic even means (not the modulo operator), so perhaps even though it's "not extremely deep" for you, it's a challenge for them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't need to be thinking about modular arithmetic to doubt 2+2=4, I could do it without having a good reason to doubt.


And I explained in the article Bertrand Russell doubted something much more fundamental 1+1=2, wrote extensively about it, and it's considered serious and important work on the foundations of mathematics.


Do you think Bertrand Russell was "dishonest" for asking people to suspend their belief?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That's not how modular arithmetic works: 2+2=4 is still true




There is no 4 in modulo 4, you are confusing the modulo operation with modular arithmetic, they are two different concepts that lead to the same result.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


For the author himself it's an interesting discovery.




It's not about what I think, from what I've seen very few people know about abstract algebra, many don't know what modulo is, and the vast majority of those who do, consider it an operation, not a completely new kind of arithmetic (as mathematicians do).


If this was general knowledge people wouldn't keep saying 2+2=4 as if it was an unequivocal fact, and at least someone would would say "well, only under normal arithmetic". I've never heard somebody say that.


Can you find an article or someone seriously saying that 2+2 isn't necessarily 4? (other than woke activists decrying Western mathematics)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Most people consider the notation of integer arithmetic to be unambiguous in a general context




But that is the point: most people make assumptions. In this particular case it's easy to see what assumption is made for people who do understand modular arithmetic, but that excludes the vast majority of people who don't.


The whole point of the article is to raise doubt about more complicated subjects which are not so easy to mathematically prove.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Except arithmetic isn't a semantic trick, and modern algebra is an important field of mathematics, not something I invented.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-12
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My post has absolutely nothing to do with bases. Did you read it?


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-14
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Dismantling pseudo-skepticism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The method I described will give the correct probability given all of the information available.




It won't.




In this case, it is.




It's not.




is more likely to be 0.3




Yes, but it is not. You got it wrong.




so the estimate for t is 0.2




But it is not 0.2.




This is the whole point of the article: to raise doubt. But you are not even considering the possibility that you might be wrong, I bet even when I'm telling you the values of t in those examples are not the ones you guessed, you will still not consider the possibility that you are wrong, even when the answers are objectively incorrect.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for November 11, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm a freedom of speech maximalist and I'm having a ton of fun watching the pro-censorship established media melting down about Elon Musk buying Twitter. I joined Twitter in 2007 and it's finally fun again. Trolling, memes, comebacks, I love it.


I'm glad people are questioning what "freedom of speech" actually means in this new computational era.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Dismantling pseudo-skepticism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes. I didn't consider it a critique. I think we are talking about the same thing except at different levels, like those Wired videos of explaining one concept "in 5 levels of difficulty".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for November 11, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I've a hard time imagining a person who could finish it and not shed at least a solitary tear.




I did not shed a tear because the ending is reminiscent of a famous anime which I'm not going to spoil. But the whole thing isn't bad.