/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15997319
This

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/free-will-solution

>>15958751
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things

>You only need faith in two things: That "induction works" has a non-super-exponentially-tiny prior probability, and that some single large ordinal is well-ordered. Anything else worth believing in is a deductive consequence of one or both.

>(Because being exposed to ordered sensory data will rapidly promote the hypothesis that induction works, even if you started by assigning it very tiny prior probability, so long as that prior probability is not super-exponentially tiny. Then induction on sensory data gives you all empirical facts worth believing in. Believing that a mathematical system has a model usually corresponds to believing that a certain computable ordinal is well-ordered (the proof-theoretic ordinal of that system), and large ordinals imply the well-orderedness of all smaller ordinals. So if you assign non-tiny prior probability to the idea that induction might work, and you believe in the well-orderedness of a single sufficiently large computable ordinal, all of empirical science, and all of the math you will actually believe in, will follow without any further need for faith.)

>(The reason why you need faith for the first case is that although the fact that induction works can be readily observed, there is also some anti-inductive prior which says, 'Well, but since induction has worked all those previous times, it'll probably fail next time!' and 'Anti-induction is bound to work next time, since it's never worked before!' Since anti-induction objectively gets a far lower Bayes-score on any ordered sequence and is then demoted by the logical operation of Bayesian updating, to favor induction over anti-induction it is not necessary to start out believing that induction works better than anti-induction, it is only necessary *not* to start out by being *perfectly* confident that induction won't work.)

>>15214066
>citing RationalWIki unironically

>>14741607
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-science-of-winning-at-life-sequence

>>14584833
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JYckkCqhZPrdScjBx/rational-romantic-relationships-part-1-relationship-styles

>>12330173
Rationalist groups like LessWrong and SSC before it got deleted

>>12007451
RationalWIki are just leftists pretending to be scientists

>>11610424
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life

What does /sci/ think of Luke Muehlhauser's sequence on how to win at life?

>>11573488

>>11556339
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RWo4LwFzpHNQCTcYt/how-to-beat-procrastination
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ty2tjPwv8uyPK9vrz/my-algorithm-for-beating-procrastination

>>11388856
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RWo4LwFzpHNQCTcYt/how-to-beat-procrastination
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ty2tjPwv8uyPK9vrz/my-algorithm-for-beating-procrastination

>>11093030
>unironically believing in emergence

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

>>11077800
>What is the scientific way to be happy?
Read this:
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life

>>11011573
Read this:
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life

>>10949228
https://www.readthesequences.com/Politics-Is-The-Mind-Killer

>>10832607
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C8nEXTcjZb9oauTCW/where-recursive-justification-hits-bottom
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things

>>10817444
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

>>10777759
Not an argument

>>10758758
Read these:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XqvnWFtRD2keJdwjX/the-useful-idea-of-truth
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/X3HpE8tMXz4m4w6Rz/the-simple-truth

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-winner-is-many-worlds