Good_Burning_Plastic

Karma: 1,102

Good_Burning_Plastic 18 Jan 2018 16:18 UTC
0 points
on: Prediction Markets are Confounded—Implications for the feasibility of Futarchy

A mysterious but trustworthy agent named “Laplace’s Demon” has recently appeared, and informed everyone that, to a first approximation, the world is currently in one of seven possible quantum states.

What is the word “quantum” doing there? Repeat with me: Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty! Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty! Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty!

Good_Burning_Plastic 17 Jan 2018 13:42 UTC
0 points
on: Prediction Markets are Confounded—Implications for the feasibility of Futarchy

The following rules are stipulated: There are four possible outcomes, either “Hillary elected and US Nuked”, “Hillary elected and US not nuked”, “Jeb elected and US nuked”, “Jeb elected and US not nuked”. Participants in the market can buy and sell contracts for each of those outcomes, the contract which correponds to the actual outcome will expire at $100, all other contracts will expire at $0

An issue about that is that all other things being equal $100 will be worth more if the US is not nuked than if it is.

Good_Burning_Plastic 17 Jan 2018 13:38 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Teachable Rationality Skills
Would buying him the first round count? ;-)

Good_Burning_Plastic 24 Sep 2017 12:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: JGWeissman’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
OTOH “venusian” sounds like it’s about the planet.

Good_Burning_Plastic 24 Sep 2017 12:28 UTC
0 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics

to the extent that ‘paternalism’ implies ‘when done by males’ I would perhaps want to use a different word

“Parentalism”?

(And “maternalism” when done by females? ;-))

Good_Burning_Plastic 24 Sep 2017 11:14 UTC
2 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics

You won’t get approached by women just for looking good

Speak for yourself! :-)

Good_Burning_Plastic 9 Aug 2017 15:44 UTC
5 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Bi-weekly Rational Feed
Not many.

Good_Burning_Plastic 27 Jul 2017 13:24 UTC
0 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Steelmanning the Chinese Room Argument

Since other people are biologically similar to me, they probably say “I’m conscious” for the same reason as me, so it makes sense to believe them.

Be careful (2, 3).

Good_Burning_Plastic 27 Jul 2017 13:02 UTC
0 points
on: Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth?
Meh. You can have two systems of coordinates related to each other by r_1 = R_Earth^2/r_2, theta_1 = theta_2, phi_1 = phi_2, t_1 = t_2 and as per general relativity both will give you the same answers if you use them right. (But one of the two will be much much easier to use right than the other.)

Good_Burning_Plastic 16 Jul 2017 6:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ZankerH’s comment on: Becoming stronger together
Why?

Good_Burning_Plastic 11 Jul 2017 7:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: philh’s comment on: Open thread, July 10 - July 16, 2017

I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate.

No, unless the queen is defended by some other piece, otherwise the king could just capture it. Or am I missing something?

Good_Burning_Plastic 7 Jul 2017 9:15 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

Putting these numbers together, a value of “having a chicken for a specific lunch” is about 1 / 1 000 000 of a value of a human life.

I’d estimate that as ((amount you’re willing to pay for a chicken lunch) - (amount you’re willing to pay for a vegan lunch))/(statistical value of life). But that’s in the same ballpark.

Good_Burning_Plastic 7 Jul 2017 9:07 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

How large part of “a value of human’s life” is “having lunch, in general, as opposed to only having a breakfast and a dinner every day of your life”? Let’s say it’s somewhere between ¹⁄₁₀ and ¹⁄₁₀₀,

I.e. you’d take a 1% chance of being killed straight away over a 100% chance of never being allowed to have lunch again, but you’d take the latter over a 10% chance of being killed straight away?

...Huh. Actually, rephrasing it this way made the numbers sound less implausible to me.

Good_Burning_Plastic 29 Jun 2017 8:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: btrettel’s comment on: a different perspecive on physics

I don’t know much anything about relativity, but waves on a grid in computational fluid dynamics (CFD for short) typically don’t have the problem you describe.

Not even for wavelengths not much longer than the grid spacing?

Good_Burning_Plastic 26 Jun 2017 13:05 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Thomas’s comment on: Open thread, June. 19 - June. 25, 2017

Otherwise the distance is infinite.

A metric is supposed to be always finite. Note the round right bracket in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definition.

Good_Burning_Plastic 25 Jun 2017 22:29 UTC
0 points
in reply to: lmn’s comment on: Any Christians Here?
How so?

Good_Burning_Plastic 25 Jun 2017 22:15 UTC
0 points
in reply to: lmn’s comment on: Any Christians Here?

Do you also find the scientific doctrine of light, and mater, being both particle and wave internally incoherent.

Depending on what exactly you mean by “particle” that’s either no less tautological than dogs being both mammals and animals or a possibly-only-approximate provisional model (complete with well-studied mathematical techniques to sweep the consequences of the incoherence under the rug) we’re using while we figure out how to extend quantum field theory down to the quantum gravity scale and beyond.

Good_Burning_Plastic 22 Jun 2017 23:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, June. 19 - June. 25, 2017

you learn science inter alie to achieve job safety

LOL

Good_Burning_Plastic 21 Jun 2017 16:05 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: S-risks: Why they are the worst existential risks, and how to prevent them
They said “adjacent in design space”. The Levenshtein distance between return val; and return -val; is 1.

Good_Burning_Plastic 12 Jun 2017 15:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: MaryCh’s comment on: Stupid Questions June 2017

Ethanol has that OH group. It’s a polar molecule, and a small one.

Yes, I was just mentioning it as an example.

But take two pure long-chained fatty acids, mix well, and then what will happen?

I guess they stay mixed. They are pretty similar molecules, so the forces that hold e.g. oleic acid molecules together so that it doesn’t evaporate (Van der Waals, I think?) can just as well hold oleic acid molecules to e.g. linoleic acid molecules. (Whereas since water molecules and oleic acid molecules are pretty different, the force between a water molecule and an oleic acid molecule is a lot smaller than between two water molecules or two oleic acid molecules.)