@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 Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
OK. I'm not a mathematician, I'm a programmer, but from what I can see the set {0,1,2,3} is isomorphic to ℤ/4ℤ that means one can be mapped to the other and vice versa. The first element of ℤ/4ℤ is isomorphic to 0, but not 0, it's a coset. But the multiplicative group of integers modulo 4 (ℤ/4ℤ)* is this isomorphic set, so it is {0,1,2,3} with integers being the members of the set. Correct?


Either way 2+2=0 can be true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is a smoke screen. You still haven't answered the question.


The most important ideas in civilization are not "clever". So what?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

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

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Good. So you accept it's possible there's importance in the nuance.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What about your second most fundamental belief that you have questioned?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I assume you didn't read the post very thoroughly, then, because the paragraph immediately below where your quote ends contains a distinguishing case.




This is an equivocation fallacy. You are using a different definition of "assume", in particular using it exactly as "suppose". In my view assuming and supposing are two different things, even in the colloquial sense.




I see the false assumption was "that you are intelligent enough to comprehend those kinds of comparative asides and familiar enough with conversational English to understand that loading them with caveats would draw too much focus away from the point they are supporting."




Wrong. I can comprehend the notion without accepting it. This is a converse error fallacy.




Asides of that type are implicitly restricted to the general case, because they are intended to quickly illustrate a point by way of rough analogy, rather than present a rigorous isomorphism.




This is obviously a cop-out. If you were aware that your claim applied only to the general case, but you merely did not make it explicit, then the moment I mentioned there was an assumption you would immediately know what assumption I was talking about, because you were fully aware.


But you didn't know what assumption I was talking about, because you were not aware of the restriction. Now you want to pretend you always knew you were making an assumption, you merely didn't say it when I pointed it out, for some reason.


This is precisely what everyone does. Before they say they aren't making an assumption, and after I point it out to them they always knew. You did exactly what I said people do, and you went for one of the options I listed: "everyone would have assumed the same".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This one. I'm the participant not making any assumptions about what you mean.


I suppose (not assume) that your question was rhetorical, and you actually believe I cannot answer it in truth, because you believe in every conversation all participants have to make assumptions all the time. But this is tentative, I do not actually know that, therefore I do not assume that's the case.


And this is a fallacy I have pointed out already. The fact that somebody appears to be making an assumption doesn't necessarily means that he is. All that glitters is not gold. You are likely going to comb through my statement and try to find a point where I made an assumption, but all you are going to find is the appearance of an assumption, without reading my mind you can't actually tell.


Once again: I do not know what you mean though, but I'm guessing, and that's all rational agents can do when communicating.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If you prove Alice isn't racist, you haven't proven anything relevant. You're just nitpicking.




In your opinion, which isn't infallible.




I'm listening to the supporting case and engaging with your arguments.




This is not enough. Open debate requires an open mind: you must accept the possibility that you might be wrong.


If you don't even accept the possibility that you might be wrong about anything, then there's no point in debating, not about Alice, not about Bob, not about anything. All you are doing is wasting the time of your interlocutor.


This in my view is arguing in bad faith. If there's absolutely no way you can be convinced otherwise, then what am I even doing?




You're mainly arguing he's as racist as Alice and I happen to know she isn't.




Therefore it's impossible for you to be convinced of anything (about Alice and even less of Bob), and there's no point in me even trying.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And because the information is limited, relevant information is missing




Information is always missing.




No, I claim I know when the week ends from the phrase "the week ends in sunday", which was included in your example. You're playing obtuse.




No, you are deliberately not engaging with my argument.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for November 18, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm loving this #TwitterDown saga getting woke progressives melting: ‘Twitter Is Dead,’ 300 Million People Post On Twitter.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How does one distinguish between someone making an assumption, and someone only appearing to be making an assumption?




By checking whether or not the person considers the possibility of the claim being not necessarily true. And if not, whether or not the claim is substantiated by evidence or reason.


Or the other way: if the person considers the claim to be 100% certain to be true without any evidence or reason to substantiate it (it just is).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All that glitters is not gold.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You think you get them right. So that's a "no, I don't question my fundamental beliefs".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I did not claim and did not need to claim anything about all instances of building Hello World in assembly; the idea that I was trying to is an assumption that you made.




This is obviously not the case because this was not an aside, but an analogy to another point that you were making. You were clearly saying that a) "coding Hello World in assembly" is never b) "coding Hello World in assembly", and always c) "coding Hello World in assembly", and there was no other possible way to interpret that.


You used that to substantiate your claim that Bertrand Russell didn't actually want to prove 1+1=2, but wanted to do something else using the proof 1+1=2 as a tool.


But in both cases you made assumptions: what you claimed is not necessarily true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But 0 is what we think, because 0 is 4.




Nobody thinks that 0 is 4.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Now you're making an unsupported assumption about my character instead of an argument. Retract it and apologize.




You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.






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








No.




That's the end of the road then.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Some of them may be calling themselves "rationalists", some of them may even try and become less easy to get caught - but they are imperfect humans, so they'll get caught anyway.




But the point is not that they get caught, all humans indeed have the potential to get caught at some point in their life, the point is why. Why do people get burnt touching a pan?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"You" are less than 0.0001% of the population, so virtually nobody.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's right. Rationalists claim it was rational to trust Sam Bankman-Fried, because if his pitch was part of an academic exam to see if this person was credible, trust would be the right answer.


But that's the thing: we are not in an academic exam, this is the real world, and people are going to try to exploit your blind spots.


I often wonder if these people play poker, video games, or any kind of board game were deception is part of the game.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Where are All the Successful Rationalists?




I relate a lot. I have not read a lot of rationalists articles, but it seems to me that a lot of what they do is share ideas amongst themselves, but these ideas are not necessarily true or important, merely interesting. Few of these ideas have anything to do with the real world.


Nassim Taleb talks about putting skin in the game as a way to escape this intellectual circle jerking, because when you confront ideas with reality is the only way to know if there's any true truth to them. This follows Karl Popper's falsification principle: if your idea cannot be falsified (in the real world), then it's worthless.


I think the reason why there are no successful rationalists is because they don't want their precious ideas to actually be tested in the real world, they'll rather keep them unopened like collectionists do, and just admire them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree, but I think the word is skepticism. You don't need to be intelligent or educated to be skeptic. It's just a mental muscle: the more you doubt claims, the easier it becomes to doubt claims.