MrMind is talking about an “oracle” in the sense of a mathematical tool. Oracles in this sense are are well-defined things that can do stuff traditional computers can’t.
amcknight
Karma: 467
This crossed my mind, but I thought there might be other deeper reasons.
where both physical references and logical references are to be described ‘effectively’ or ‘formally’, in computable or logical form.
Can anyone say a bit more about why physical references would need to be described ‘effectively’/computably? Is this based on the assumption that the physical universe must be computable?
C83
I’m jealous
For the slightly more advanced procrastinator that also finds a large sequence of tasks daunting, it might help to instead search for the first few tasks and then ignore the rest for now. Of course, sometimes in order to find the first tasks you may need to break down the whole task, but other times you don’t.
A Survey of Mathematical Ethics which covers work in multiple disciplines. I’d love to know what parts of ethics have been formalized enough to be written mathematically and, for example, any impossibility results that have been shown.
A Survey of Mathematical Ethics which covers work in multiple disciplines. I’d love to know what parts of ethics have been formalized enough to be written mathematically and, for example, any impossibility results that have been shown.
I would be happy to be able to read Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis ScienceDirect IngentaConnect (I’m not sure if adding these links helps you guys, but here they are anyways)
Quantum mechanics and Metaethics are what initially drew me to LessWrong. Without them, the Sequences aren’t as amazingly impressive, interesting, and downright bold. As solid as the other content is, I don’t think the Sequences would be as good without these somewhat more speculative parts. This content might even be what really gets people talking about the book.
Another group I recommend investigating that is working on x-risk reduction is the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, which was founded in 2011 and has been ramping up substantially over the last few months. As far as I can tell they are attempting to fill a role that is different from SIAI and FHI by connecting with existing think tanks that are already thinking about GCR related subject matter. Check out their research page.
Churchland, Paul M., State-space Semantics and Meaning Holism in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research JStor Philosophy Documentation Center
Problems with this approach have been discussed here.
Well it doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with reality.
I’m definitely having more trouble than I expected. Unicorns have 5 legs… does that count? You’re making me doubt myself.
I think this includes too much. It would includes meaningless beliefs. “Zork is Pork.” True or false? Consistency seems to me to be, at best, a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
I think a more general notion of truth could be defined as correspondence between a map and any structure. If you define a structure using axioms and are referencing that structure, then you can talk about the correspondence properties of that reference. This at least cover both mathematical structures and physical reality.
It seems to me that we can mean things in both ways once we are aware of the distinction.
what is anthropic information? what is indexical information? Is there a difference?
citations please! I doubt that most dictators think they are benevolent and are consequentialists.
Let’s say you think a property, like ‘purpose’, is a two parameter function and someone else tells you it’s a three parameter function. An interesting thing to do is to accept that it is a three parameter function and then ask yourself which of the following holds:
1) The third parameter is useless and however it varies, the output doesn’t change.
2) There is a special input you’ve been assuming is the ‘correct’ input, which allowed you to treat the function as if it were a two parameter function.