Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 206
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Against Talking About Anthropics/Possible Worlds/etc in the Sleeping Beauty Problem
I get it. Anthropics is an interesting topic. Possible worlds has a long and rich philosophical history. I can get why people might want to expose more people to that stuff, kinda squint at the sleeping beauty problem, then think that it's close enough to spread the gospel.
But that's confusing people.
It's confusing them on what is otherwise a very simple math problem.
For those who haven't seen my last entry, I made some minor modifications, primarily adding a second person, so we have both Alice and Bob undergoing simultaneous experiments. The simplest version is that they each undergo approximately the same experiment, with the same coin, but opposite (the implications of heads for one person are like the implications of tails for the other). I also had some computer communication between them for some instructive purposes, but that's not even necessary here.1
Let's follow Alice and Bob a bit further. Suppose after their one/two awakenings, they're put back to sleep, memory again wiped. They're both finally awoken on Wednesday. "No more questions," the doctors say. "We took the liberty of interpreting your answers as wagers. We have your home address. We'll compute your payout and mail you a check with your results, revealing to you how the coin actually came out, how you answered the questions (because they won't remember), and what your payout is. Expect it to take 4-8 weeks."
Alice and Bob leave their respective rooms. They run into each other in the lobby.
Wait
Can Alice and Bob run into each other in the lobby? Aren't they, like, in different possible worlds or something? No, silly. That's confusing people. They're in the same world. They've been in the same hallway all along, separated by only a paper-thin wall.
Ok, so they run into each other in the lobby. They hit it off, decide to go out to a pub and grab a pint together. Naturally, the conversation turns to the strange experiment they each went through. Neither one is going to know how the coin flip actually went or what subsequently happened for another 4-8 weeks.
They begin to debate. How should they best guess what their results might have been? What if they'd like to wager against one another about the results? Should they have significantly different estimates of what they're going to see in their results? Should Alice think that there's a 1/3 chance that they're going to learn that it was heads, while Bob should think that there's a 1/3 chance that they're going to learn that it was tails? Did they truly "update" their probabilities during the course of the experiment?
No. Of course not. If either of them thought that, you could take their money. They should both think that it was 1/2 either heads or tails. This is because they didn't "update" some probability estimate. They didn't enter some weird different possible worlds, where never the physical Alice and Bob could ever meet again.
Instead, Alice and Bob are both capable of having a perfectly reasonable conversation. "Yeah, of course I think the probability of the coin flip was 1/2. It's just because of the weird observation function of the experiment that I computed that there was a different probability for what I was likely to observe." "Yeah, me too, but my observation function was the opposite, so I computed that I was likely to observe the opposite. But obviously, at the same time, the probability of the coin flip was 1/2."
They're just different probabilities with different meanings. You can just compute them from the observation functions.
1 - That time, I was trying to get people to figure out that they could have one individual's brain retaining multiple different probabilities, with multiple different meanings. I guess this time, I'll just try having multiple different minds meeting.
More options
Context Copy link