Search Ideas
Criticising HTV would anyway be the more important first step. Maybe examples of good theories with some ETV aspects (compared to rejected theories) in them could reveal some more.
That could work, yeah. What other criticisms of HTV can you think of?
To make a new version of #3516, revise the idea. See that pencil button?
Criticising HTV would anyway be the more important first step.
The linked blog post has several criticisms of HTV.
I think the first question is whether HTV is a real concept (because if real, it is programmable, and via EC to arbitrary precision)
To understand if it’s real, we need to seek counterexamples/ counterarguments, not demand that a program can be written
What would such a program prove ? Not that HTV is real, but also not that we understand something about HTV.
That’s because Deutsch only says : no program = no understanding. That implies having a basic conception programmed can mean that you understand something. Take the season’s example, you could simulate that replacing Gods would not change the fact that they cry but that tears are not the same as rain etc. Granted, this would only be for 1 example, extending HTV to general examples would be needed. But with such basic program, for 1 example theory, we can’t conclude either that we do not understand anything about HTV.
Criticising HTV would anyway be the more important first step. Maybe examples of good theories with some ETV aspects (compared to rejected theories) in them could reveal some more.
I think the first question is whether HTV is a real concept (because if real, it is programmable, and via EC to arbitrary precision)
To understand if it’s real, we need to seek counterexamples/ counterarguments, not demand that a program can be written
What would such a program prove ? Not that HTV is real, but also not that we understand something about HTV.
That’s because Deutsch only says : no program = no understanding. That implies having a basic conception programmed can mean that you understand something. Take the season’s example, you could simulate that replacing Gods would not change the fact that they cry but that tears are not the same as rain etc. Granted, this would only be for 1 example, extending HTV to general examples would be needed. But with such basic program, for 1 example theory, we can’t conclude either that we do not understand anything about HTV.
But again, criticising HTV is the more important first step. Maybe examples of good theories with some ETV aspects (compared to rejected theories) in them could reveal some more.
Deutsch’s “hard to vary” is a guideline for criticizing explanations, not a step by step decision algorithm.
But he says to use hard to vary as part of a decision-making algorithm. As quoted in my blog post:
“we should choose between [explanations] according to how good they are…: how hard to vary.”
Hey Fitz, welcome to Veritula.
I realize that DD doesn’t think of it in strict, procedural terms, but I just don’t think that’s good enough, for several reasons. One is that it’s too vague, as I explain here. We don’t know how to actually do anything he says to do, beyond broad suggestions.
I think your challenge asks for the wrong kind of thing. Deutsch’s “hard to vary” is a guideline for criticizing explanations, not a step by step decision algorithm. In this paper he says scientific methodology does not prescribe exact procedures, and that “better” explanations are not always totally rankable in a clean, mechanical way. “Hard to vary” mainly means avoiding explanations that can be tweaked to fit anything, because then they explain nothing, so the lack of a universal scoring program does not refute the idea.
THE LOGIC OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTS, PARTICULARLY OF EVERETTIAN QUANTUM THEORY
https://www.constructortheory.org/portfolio/logic-experimental-tests/
From the Paper:
An explanation is better the more it is constrained by the explicanda and by other good explanations,[5] but we shall not need precise criteria here; we shall only need the following: that an explanation is bad (or worse than a rival or variant explanation) to the extent that…
(i)
it seems not to account for its explicanda; or
(ii)
it seems to conflict with explanations that are otherwise good; or
(iii)
it could easily be adapted to account for anything (so it explains nothing).
For something to be a core virtue, it needs to be a virtue that should always be applied in any situation where it can be applied. Forgiveness is not something that should be applied in all relevant situations, so I don’t believe it is a core virtue.
At best it would be an applied virtue, as an expression of Justice.
I actually think people are too forgiving in some ways.
I’ll think about adding it to the applied virtues list.
Bounties are epistemologically relevant.
Let’s say you post a high bounty for some idea and your terms are reasonable. If there are no pending criticisms when the bounty ends, maybe that’s because it’s a good idea.
Scientists, philosophers, anyone who’s serious about ideas, should run bounties.
Bounties are epistemologically relevant.
Let’s say you post a high bounty for some idea and your terms are reasonable. If there are no pending criticisms when the bounty ends, maybe that’s because it’s a good idea.
Scientists, philosophers, anyone who’s serious about ideas, should run bounties.
Yes, here's a new version:
Some minds with one coercive memeplex are more like dictatorships.
In practice, yeah, but the end goal is decentralised ownership and control. According to the Britannica dictionary:
"Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.""
[P]eople with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Aren’t communist societies totalitarian and highly centralized?
Some minds with lots of coercive memes are more like dictatorships.
Doesn’t a dictatorship mean there’s only a single actor at the top? If there’s lots of coercive memes, that sounds like multiple actors.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Cool, would you say then that it is only in empirical fields we can deduce facts/truth?
No, we can deduce truth from theories in any field.
I’d only call something a ‘fact’ in an empirical field. Like, I wouldn’t call a philosophical truth a ‘fact’.
It is a fact that I had sweet potatoes for lunch today. It’s true that children shouldn’t be forced to go to school.
But that might be more of a quibble about words than an important epistemological distinction.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Starting December 23, 2025, select users can run bounties. Anyone can participate.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You have a connected Stripe account in good standing before the review period begins, and it remains connected through the end of the review period.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Starting December 23, 2025, select users can run bounties. Anyone can participate.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You have a connected Stripe account in good standing before the review period begins, and it remains connected through the end of the review period.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
Just as nations can have different forms of governance, minds can too.
For example: Most probably have that CEO-sense of self.
Some minds with lots of coercive memes are more like dictatorships.
People with "smaller egos" (less anti-rational memes) are more like libertarian societies.
But people with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Split personalities would be akin to a highly polarised society that switches governance back and forth.
Cool, would you say then that it is only in empirical fields we can deduce facts/truth?
If so: In what way is this different from Wittgenstein saying we can't reach any truths in philosophy (which makes it meaningless)?
If … the mind is a decentralized system, does the mind have something like a price system for its different parts to communicate?
But the mind isn’t a decentralized system. It has a central ‘I’ sitting at the top. So it’s more like a company with a CEO than a fully decentralized system.
Hayek was a terrible writer. Convoluted, hard to understand.
For example, as quoted by Twitter account F. A. Hayek Quotes:
The more a man indulges in the propensity to blame others or circumstances for his failures, the more disgruntled and ineffective he tends to become.
He could have just said ‘blaming others makes you unhappy and weak’. But he chose complicated language, presumably to impress people.
Makes me think he didn’t have much of substance to say.
He was also sloppy at quoting: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/investigating-hayek-s-misquotes
Original article: https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html
My simplified ‘translation’: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hayek-s-the-use-of-knowledge-in-society-simp
Mirror: https://open.substack.com/pub/hackethal/p/hayeks-the-use-of-knowledge-in-society
In our book club today, @erik-orrje raised the issue of split personalities.
I’m wildly speculating here, but I wonder if split personalities could be the result of the price mechanism inside a mind being broken.
If the price mechanism is needed for different parts of the mind to communicate with each other, and this mechanism breaks down somehow, then the parts become isolated.
Hayek writes:
[P]rices can act to coördinate [sic] the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coördinate the parts of his plan.
Hayek argues that any one man always knows very little about the economy as a whole. But the price system will tell him the little he does need to know.
I wonder how far the similarities between the economy and a single mind go. If the price system is a way for parts of a decentralized system to communicate, and the mind is a decentralized system, does the mind have something like a price system for its different parts to communicate?
A mind is vast, full of ideas. Any part of it always knows very little about the rest. In this sense, ideas in a mind are like men in an economy. So how do these ideas coordinate efficiently? Do emotions act like a price system inside the mind? Ayn Rand writes:
Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.
The fun criterion is surely relevant in this context, too. Hayek writes that a rational economic order is about “conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to fit their plans with those of others.” That sounds like common-preference finding, which essentially works the same across minds as it does within a single mind.
Are prices inside the mind involved in finding common preferences?