People allergic to Stephen Wolfram and criticizing “Wolfram Physics” (e.g. Scott Aaronson) would better contribute to the conversation by reading Jonathan Gorard’s publications, forming their opinion of the content of that published work, and expressing their non-ad-Wolfram criticisms. The broader “culture clash” problem is that Wolfram Physics is a metaphysical theory rather than a physics theory: it explains physics theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, rather than explaining a specific physical phenomenon. (Further physics theories can be advanced within Wolfram Physics.)
lukstafi
Karma: 168
Rodney Brooks’ predictions made at the beginning of 2018: https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2022-january-01/
Moral anti-realists do not claim that people don’t have preferences. Rather, they claim that there are no preference-assumption-free facts regarding preference system comparisons. Therefore moral anti realists will not seek such facts. Moral realists may seek such facts in order to improve/correct their preferences.
The implications of moral anti realism for action revolve around pursuing facts to feed into terminal preference updates.
“if anti-realism is true, it doesn’t matter [to us] what we do”—that’s false. Whether something does matter to us is a fact independent of whether something ought to matter to us.
I advise using JAX instead of Tensorflow.
I recently read David Goggins “Can’t Hurt Me”. On one level it does glorify superhuman pain tolerance. But a constructive perspective on such attitudes is: they illustrate courage. Do not tolerate pain, laugh at it! Do not tense under cold shower, relax into it. Do not bear problems, solve them.
The fridge / the freezer!
Would you consider MuZero an advance in causal reasoning? Despite intentionally not representing causality / explicit model dynamics, it supports hypothetical reasoning via state tree search.
Do you think there’s a chance of MuZero—AlphaStar crossover?
The general tool: residual networks variant of convolutional NNs, MCTS-like variable-depth tree search. Prerequisites: input can be presented as K layers of N-D data (where N=1,2,3… not too large), the action space is discrete. If the actions are not discrete, an additional small module would be needed to quantize the action space based on the neural network’s action priors.
Perhaps a satisfactory answer can be found in “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein” by Hilary Putnam (who seemed to me to be a reasonable philosopher, but converted to Judaism). I’ve just started listening to its audiobook version, prompted by this post.
At high-school level, physics has perhaps the richest tightly-knit concept structures.
Including signaling “thanks” to the university. :-)
Reminds me of the error—on charitable reading, of the characters, but perhaps of the author—in “Permutation City”. There’s no such a thing as out-of-order simulation.
Only in objective modal sense. Beliefs are probabilistic constraints over observations anticipated given a context. So in the example with stars moving away, the stars are still observables because there is counterfactual context where we observe them from nearby (by traveling with them etc.)
(1) It’s totally tongue-in-cheek. (2) By “modern” I don’t mean “contemporary”, I mean “since Descartes onwards”. (3) By “notes” I mean criticisms. (4) The point is that I see responses to the simulation aka. Daemon argument recurring in philosophy.
Modern philosophy is just a set of notes on the margins of Descartes’ “Meditations”.
All our values are fallible, but doubt requires justification.
Persons do not have fixed value systems anyway. A value system is a partly-physiologically-implemented theory of what is valuable (good, right, etc.) One can recognize a better theory and try to make one’s habits and reactions fit to it. Pedophilia is bad if it promotes a shallower reaction to a young person, and good if it promotes a richer reaction, it depends on particulars of brain-implementing-pedophilia. Abusing anyone is bad.
What if “system 2” is like a register machine with 4 pointer-storing registers / slots / tabs, 2 per hemisphere? (Peter Carruthers “The Centered Mind”.) I don’t reject information processing, but rather consider “working memory” to be a misnomer. The brain does not implement
memcpy.