I’m trying to get at least a rough approximation of the upper bound of confidence that LWers place on an idea that seems, to me, to be about as proven as it’s possible for an idea to be.
Mainly, because estimating the accuracy of a math statement brings in various philosophical details about the nature of math and numbers, which would likely distract from the focus on theories relating to the nature of our universe. So I went for the most foundational physical theory I could think of… and phrased it rather poorly.
If you have a suggestion on how to un-vague-ify my main post, I’d be happy to read it.
Mainly, because estimating the accuracy of a math statement brings in various philosophical details about the nature of math and numbers, which would likely distract from the focus on theories relating to the nature of our universe.
Except it doesn’t—whether or not we can know those philosophical details are conditional on the accuracy of human hardware, which as far as I can tell is what you want people to estimate.
I’m trying to get at least a rough approximation of the upper bound of confidence that LWers place on an idea that seems, to me, to be about as proven as it’s possible for an idea to be.
It’s funny how many people sidestep the question.
Why not something like the probability of 2 + 2 = 4? Surely that’s more certain than any vague definition of “Atomic Theory of Matter.”
Mainly, because estimating the accuracy of a math statement brings in various philosophical details about the nature of math and numbers, which would likely distract from the focus on theories relating to the nature of our universe. So I went for the most foundational physical theory I could think of… and phrased it rather poorly.
If you have a suggestion on how to un-vague-ify my main post, I’d be happy to read it.
Except it doesn’t—whether or not we can know those philosophical details are conditional on the accuracy of human hardware, which as far as I can tell is what you want people to estimate.