Hard to Vary or Hardly Usable?

Showing only ideas leading to #5426 and its comments.

See full discussion​·​See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. You may need to scroll sideways.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#3069​·​
Only version leading to #5426 (9 total)
 This idea has an active bounty worth USD 3,600.00. Log in to participate.

My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.

Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.

A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.

So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.

You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable

Battle-tested
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5419​·​

Neil Hudson says in response to the bounty:

I wonder if this objection risks making a Hilbertian mistake: assuming that an objective criterion must provide a universal decision procedure. Gödel taught us not to equate objectivity with decidability. Why should HTV need to algorithmically rank every pair of explanations to be meaningful?

Criticism of #3069Criticized3*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5420​·​

Not a mathematician but AFAIK, Hilbert basically asked if we could make a machine that answers every math question correctly. The answer to that is ‘no’. But an algorithm for rational decision-making isn’t about that.

Criticism of #5419
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5426​·​
2nd of 2 versions

Neil replies fallibility means the criterion must be able to get answers wrong or not deliver an answer at all sometimes. And if that’s the case, not any pair should be needed. Otherwise, “reliably compare” would be a demand for infallibility.

Criticism of #5420Criticized2
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5428​·​

I reply:

The word “reliably” refers to the claim in BoI that ppl search for HTV explanations “systematically”; that they follow some yet-to-be-specified system to form preferences this way.

The system/program, being man-made, would of course be fallible. Still, since BoI says HTV is at the heart of all rational endeavors, the system must be universal. Hence the requirement for any pair.

Criticism of #5426
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5429​·​

I also reply that “Since a fully programmed replacement for HTV already exists that meets all these conditions [mentioned in #5428], I’m not sure it’d be fair to hold HTV to a lesser standard.”

Criticism of #5426
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5432​·​

More on the difference between a criterion of rationality and the demand for infallibility: #5336