@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 New Old Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I know about human behavior enough to know that a person who thinks asking a woman out would end up with him murdered or in jail




Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I think.




I don't need to, if I can observe your behavior and if I can assume you not entirely unlike a typical human.




Converse error fallacy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There is no "gray prison", there's only prison. In the real world at some point decisions must be made.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't require 100% certainty to call anything true, but even if I did, I don't need to call absolutely anything true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Thus it seems very reasonable to conclude that we are in a simulation and we are thus ruled by a deity.




I see people make this probabilistic fallacy very often. You can say X is very likely, so it's reasonable to conclude it's true, but winning Russian roulette is likely, do you think it's reasonable to conclude you will win? This doesn't change with higher values of X.


If you change the statement to "it's reasonable to conclude that we are likely in a simulation", then I would agree.


I don't believe rand() < 0.99 is true, because it could be false.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


In economics terms what you do is take your Bayesian beliefs and multiply each probability by the utility gained or lost by each state.




I know how expected value works. But this confirms what I said: a single percentage cannot tell me what I should believe.


Also, this still doesn't answer my scenario. Is the next toss of a coin going to land heads given that in previous instances there have been 50 heads / 50 tails? How about 0 heads / 0 tails?


I know there's a difference, but Bayesians assume they are the same.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It certainly could, which is why I'm not advocating for cynicism, what I advocate for is skepticism. Many true skeptics end up being cynics, but not all cynics are good skeptics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Humans, even rationalists, have to make decisions without the time to obtain perfect knowledge.




Yes, sometimes, but a lot of times they don't have to make a decision, and they do anyway. For example if I enter a meeting I will want to sit down, I don't know if the chair isn't broken, but I sit down anyway. Is not checking the chair a mistake? No, I can make a decision without perfect knowledge. But what about a raffle? I also don't know that I'm going to lose, so it might make sense to buy a ticket, but I don't have to. You'll say that I made a decision anyway, but not necessarily, a lot of times the result is "I don't know", and that's not really a decision.




It's only prudent to place bets if you think the upside might be big and the downside small.




That depends on the odds. A small upside and big downside might make sense if the odds of losing are sufficiently small.




In other words, there were probably rationalists in the OP's sample that donated/took money from SBF while thinking this is all likely going to blow up in their face.




But those are two different things. Taking money from a person is one decision, trusting that person is a completely different one. You can take money from a person without trusting them.


The difference between skeptics and normal people is not readily apparent. We both sit on a chair without checking if it's broken, but I as a rational skeptic do not assume it is unbroken. The end result looks the same, but the mental model is different: I do not have a belief.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No, it remains to convince you that X is false.




If there was a person willing to engage in open debate who I had a chance to convince, sadly there's none. There is no point in debate if one side is completely closed off.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes. But the whole point of my post is to get people to reconsider what basic notions like 2+2 are.


And if I understand correctly in ℤ/4ℤ there is no 2 in the main set, it's {..,-6,-2,2,6,...}, so it's actually {...,-6,-2,2,6,...}+{...,-6,-2,2,6,...}={...,-8,-4,0,4,8,...}, or something like that. 2 is just a simplification of the coset.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Listening to your case and engaging with your argument will make me change my mind




No it won't.




No, it's still possible for me to be convinced of true things.




Obvious circular reasoning. You believe X is false, and you say it's possible for you to be convinced that X is true if X were true, but X is false, because you believe X is false. Could not be more obvious.


Do you accept the possibility that X may be true? Yes or no.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Only because 4=0.




So 2+2=4=0="not what you think". Therefore the claim of my post is true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
OK. But in the answers it's claimed that this defines a new way to say what elements equals to what else, so 3=7. Therefore 4=0, and 2+2=0.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

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

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, but this is what happens when you are conned. You feel betrayed for trusting someone or something only to realize that your bullshit detector isn't as good as you thought it was. The cognitive dissonance when you are forced to change paradigms is a personal struggle, but not something that changes the world in any way, only your perception of the world.


The goodness in the world isn't going to diminish because effective altruism turned out to be bullshit, only Scott's belief in the goodness in the world.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This can be less than one bit




Yes, but it cannot be more. The point here is that information is not being "omitted", there's always limits to how much information can be transmitted, stored, processed, etc.


And in general programmers try to not use more information than necessary, this is not unique to this field, it's just easier to see because the information can be precisely measured.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


“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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Dismantling pseudo-skepticism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's reasonable to express uncertainty, but for a case like this with a very limited set of possible outcomes then "I don't know" should still convert to a number.




No, it's a function, not a single number.




In fact, with maximum uncertainty, 50% is correct: If your distribution over the true probabilities is uniform, then integrating over that distribution gives your subjective probability of heads as 1/2.




No, if it's a uniform distribution you can calculate the probability that the actual probability is between 45% and 55%: 10%. For me 10% is very unlikely.


But the probability that the actual probability is between 90% and 100% is equally likely: 10%.




On the other hand, if you've flipped a lot of coins and you know that most coins are fair, then seeing 8 heads shouldn't move the needle much, so the answer might not be exactly 50% but it would be quite close.




You are confusing the most likely probability with "the answer". The most likely probability is close to 50%, yeah, but that's not the answer. The answer is a function. Given that function you can calculate the probability that the actual probability is between 45% and 55%, and given that the most likely probability is in this range, the likelihood is going to be high, but there's a non-zero probability that the true probability lies outside that range.


Probabilities of probabilities should make anyone question their own certainty on "the answer".