I also claim that meta-rationalists claim to be at level 3, while they are not.
Can you support that? I rather suspect you are confusing new in the historic sense with new-to-rationalists. Bay area rationalism claims to be new, but is in many respects a rehash of old ideas like logical positivism. Likewise, meta rationalism is old, historically.
, I haven’t seen any proof that meta-rationalists have offered god as a simplifying hypothesis of some unexplained phoenomenon that wasn’t trivial.
Theres a large literature on that sort of subject. Meta rationality is not something Chapman invented a few years ago.
But the entire raison d’etre of mathematics is that everything is reducible to trivial, it just takes hundreds of pages more.
You still have relative inscrutability, because advanced maths isn’t scrutable to everybody.
but claiming that something is inherently mysterious...
Bay area rationalism claims to be new, but is in many respects a rehash of old ideas like logical positivism.
I’m not sure that’s true. CFAR (as one of the institutions of Bay Area rationalism) puts a lot of value on system I and system II being friends.
Even when we just look at rationality!Eliezer, Eliezer argued for the Multiple World Hypothesis in a way that runs counter to logical positivism.
I don’t think MWI is an exception to Eliezer’s other stated views about epistomology. He isn’t naive about epistomology and thinks that the fact that MWI is coherent in some sense is reason to believe in it even when there’s no experiment that could be run to prove it.
Now I understand that we are talking with two completely different frames of reference. When I write about meta-rationalists, I’m specifically referring to Chapman and Gworley and the like. You have obviously a much wider tradition in mind, on which I don’t necessarily have an opinion. Everything I said needs to be restricted to this much smaller context.
On other points of your answer:
yes, there are important antecedents, but also important novelties too;
identification of what you consider to be the relevant corpus of ‘old’ meta-rationality would be appreciated, mainly of deity as a simplifying nontrivial hypothesis;
about inherently mysteriousness, it’s claimed in the linked post of this page, first paragraph: ” I had come to terms with the idea that my thoughts might never be fully explicable”.
Can you support that? I rather suspect you are confusing new in the historic sense with new-to-rationalists. Bay area rationalism claims to be new, but is in many respects a rehash of old ideas like logical positivism. Likewise, meta rationalism is old, historically.
Theres a large literature on that sort of subject. Meta rationality is not something Chapman invented a few years ago.
You still have relative inscrutability, because advanced maths isn’t scrutable to everybody.
Nobody said that.
I’m not sure that’s true. CFAR (as one of the institutions of Bay Area rationalism) puts a lot of value on system I and system II being friends. Even when we just look at rationality!Eliezer, Eliezer argued for the Multiple World Hypothesis in a way that runs counter to logical positivism.
My take is that the LP is the official doctrine, and the MWI is an unwitting exception.
I don’t think MWI is an exception to Eliezer’s other stated views about epistomology. He isn’t naive about epistomology and thinks that the fact that MWI is coherent in some sense is reason to believe in it even when there’s no experiment that could be run to prove it.
He’s naive enough to reinvent LP. And since when was “coherent , therefore true” a precept of his epistemology?
Now I understand that we are talking with two completely different frames of reference.
When I write about meta-rationalists, I’m specifically referring to Chapman and Gworley and the like. You have obviously a much wider tradition in mind, on which I don’t necessarily have an opinion. Everything I said needs to be restricted to this much smaller context.
On other points of your answer:
yes, there are important antecedents, but also important novelties too;
identification of what you consider to be the relevant corpus of ‘old’ meta-rationality would be appreciated, mainly of deity as a simplifying nontrivial hypothesis;
about inherently mysteriousness, it’s claimed in the linked post of this page, first paragraph: ” I had come to terms with the idea that my thoughts might never be fully explicable”.