John_Baez

• John_BaezAug 20, 2010, 11:02 AM

  7 points

  in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: The Im­por­tance of Self-Doubt

  It’s some sort of mutant version of “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”.

• John_BaezAug 19, 2010, 7:58 AM

  22 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Ex­is­ten­tial Risk and Public Relations

  My new blog “Azimuth” may not be mathy enough for you, but if you like the n-Category Cafe, it’s possible you may like this one too. It’s more focused on technology, environmental issues, and the future. Someday soon you’ll see an interview with Eliezer! And at some point we’ll probably get into decision theory as applied to real-world problems. We haven’t yet.

  (I don’t think the n-Category Cafe is “coming to a halt”, just slowing down—my change in interests means I’m posting a lot less there, and Urs Schreiber is spending most of his time developing the nLab.)

• John_BaezMay 3, 2010, 12:03 AM

  8 points

  in reply to: Sebastian_Hagen’s comment on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  Or: it says “This is undecidable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory plus the axiom of choice”. In the case of P=NP, I might believe it

  Ask again, with another famously unsolved math problem. Repeat until it stops saying that or you run out of problems you know.

  I would not believe a purported god if it said all 9 remaining Clay math prize problems are undecidable.

• John_BaezMay 2, 2010, 11:59 PM

  20 points

  in reply to: Aurini’s comment on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  Unbridled Utilitarianism, taken to the extreme, would mandate some form of forced Socialism.

  So maybe some form of forced socialism is right. But you don’t seem interested in considering that possibility. Why not?

  While Utilitarianism is excellent for considering consequences, I think it’s a mistake to try and raise it as a moral principle.

  Why not?

  It seems like you have some pre-established moral principles which you are using in your arguments against utilitarianism. Right?

  I don’t see how you can compromise on these principles. Either each person has full ownership of themselves (so long as they don’t infringe on others), or they have zero ownership.

  To me it seems that most people making difficult moral decisions make complicated compromises between competing principles.