Your criticism of rationality for not guaranteeing correctness is unfair because nothing can do that.
I agree. My concern is that LW claims to be “less wrong” than it is.
Everything is objectively true or false
A third possibility is “undecidable” (as in Godel incompleteness). There’s something weird going on with consciousness that may resolve this question once understood.
I don’t really understand your objection. When I say that everything is objectively true or false, I mean that any particular thing is either part of the universe/reality at a given point in time/space or it isn’t. I don’t see any other possibility*. Perhaps you are confusing the map and the territory? It is perfectly possible to answer questions with “I don’t know” or “mu” but that doesn’t mean that the universe itself is in principle unknowable. The fact that consciousness is not properly understood yet does not mean that it occupies a special state of existing/not existing: We are the one’s that are confused, not the universe.
*Ok, my brain just came up with another possibility but it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.
I think we are in agreement that rational decision-making is usually valuable, and that some people sometimes cite rationality in order to give false weight to their opinions. To continue your analogy, I’m saying that studying the rules of the road ceases to be a good use of time for most people once a basic driver’s license is earned, even if it can slightly reduce accident risk. The possibility of upvotes while having this discussion is making me reconsider.
The universe could be fundamentally unknowable, though this possibility doesn’t seem very useful.
I agree. My concern is that LW claims to be “less wrong” than it is.
A third possibility is “undecidable” (as in Godel incompleteness). There’s something weird going on with consciousness that may resolve this question once understood.
I don’t really understand your objection. When I say that everything is objectively true or false, I mean that any particular thing is either part of the universe/reality at a given point in time/space or it isn’t. I don’t see any other possibility*. Perhaps you are confusing the map and the territory? It is perfectly possible to answer questions with “I don’t know” or “mu” but that doesn’t mean that the universe itself is in principle unknowable. The fact that consciousness is not properly understood yet does not mean that it occupies a special state of existing/not existing: We are the one’s that are confused, not the universe.
*Ok, my brain just came up with another possibility but it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.
I think we are in agreement that rational decision-making is usually valuable, and that some people sometimes cite rationality in order to give false weight to their opinions. To continue your analogy, I’m saying that studying the rules of the road ceases to be a good use of time for most people once a basic driver’s license is earned, even if it can slightly reduce accident risk. The possibility of upvotes while having this discussion is making me reconsider.
The universe could be fundamentally unknowable, though this possibility doesn’t seem very useful.