Your position seems to me like saying that if we can't see the shortest path through a maze, then it must have no shortest path or at least the concept of a shortest path must not be useful. Seems useful to me. I don't get your weird ban? What else can be said?
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @juliagalef and
I’m saying that in many/most cases there is no one correct metric, and therefore no shortest path. It’s an ontological objection, not an epistemological one. (Relatedly: I see rationalism as pervasively misunderstanding ontological questions as being epistemological ones.)
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
So relativize the "shortest path" to a metric, like all preference orderings on options are relativized to a utility function. These ideas are technically straightforward, and if somebody manages to shoot themselves in the psychological foot, I would not blame the theory.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
What distinguishes your position from the guy in math class claiming that there exists no absolute definition or way of counting apples, so 2 apples + 2 apples can't be said to yield 4 apples? Sure it's an ontological objection, but the answer is a sigh and to go on using math.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @juliagalef and
That is a case in which one choice is almost certainly better than others (and it’s obvious which). I am not advocating unbounded relativism! In many cases, it *isn’t* obvious what ontology will work well; and meta-rationality is about how to deal with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Example. I have some electronic circuit. Is a Kirkhoff’s Law approximation good enough? Or is it small enough that I have to go all the way to Maxwell’s equations? Or even, do I need a relativistic correction?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
Well, if you pick an approximation that gives you wrong answers, I suggest you update against your hypothesis that the circuit was large enough and the math such as to make that a good approximation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @juliagalef and
Yes: this is an instance of meta-rational reasoning! Note that it’s not based on general-purpose a priori considerations, but the domain-specific observation that circuit size is a major contributor to what ontology is appropriate.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
Are you under the impression CFAR doesn't teach this? They do. In practice, math teachers also teach the meta-math of deciding how many apples there are to add, aka "counting". They even teach "casting out nines", a higher criterion for deciding if a math calculation was right!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
If I may jump in and observe, I thiiiink the distinction here is whether "EV maximizing" is just a tool/framework like other tools, which can be appropriate at some times and not at others, or whether it's closer to objective like "shortest path" in the maze example.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes! This has been a very interesting discussion—thank you all! I’m going to sleep now… I may have more to day tomorrow :)
-
-
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.