You are attacking my weak points, which is right and proper.
I’ve taken introductory college physics and read the quantum bits in Motion Mountain and watched some Khan Academy videos and read the Everett FAQ and this page and the answer to your question is “not very much, really”. The reason I think it’s unlikely that I don’t know enough physics to know whether Eliezer is right is because I don’t think Eliezer doesn’t know enough physics to know whether he is right. Scott Aaronson wiggled his eyebrows at that possibility without asserting it, which is why I have it under consideration.
What about this thread?
I don’t see an alternative to Yudkowsky’s metaethics in there, except for error theory, which looks to me more like an assertion, “there is no metaethics” (Edit: More like no correct metaethics) than a metaethics. I’m fairly ignorant about this, though, which is another reason for my somewhat wide confidence interval.
Nitpick: error theory is more like saying “there is no ethics”. In that sense it’s a first-order claim; the metaethical part is where you claim that ethical terms actually do have some problematic meaning.
As for alternative metaethics; have a read of this if you’re interested in the kind of background from which Richard is arguing.
How much physics do you know?
What about this thread?
You are attacking my weak points, which is right and proper.
I’ve taken introductory college physics and read the quantum bits in Motion Mountain and watched some Khan Academy videos and read the Everett FAQ and this page and the answer to your question is “not very much, really”. The reason I think it’s unlikely that I don’t know enough physics to know whether Eliezer is right is because I don’t think Eliezer doesn’t know enough physics to know whether he is right. Scott Aaronson wiggled his eyebrows at that possibility without asserting it, which is why I have it under consideration.
I don’t see an alternative to Yudkowsky’s metaethics in there, except for error theory, which looks to me more like an assertion, “there is no metaethics” (Edit: More like no correct metaethics) than a metaethics. I’m fairly ignorant about this, though, which is another reason for my somewhat wide confidence interval.
Nitpick: error theory is more like saying “there is no ethics”. In that sense it’s a first-order claim; the metaethical part is where you claim that ethical terms actually do have some problematic meaning.
As for alternative metaethics; have a read of this if you’re interested in the kind of background from which Richard is arguing.