Search Ideas

In #5368, I mean fully new options. Like a new theory in addition to QM and GR. Such a theory is extremely hard to come by.

I reply:

Sometimes it’s *hard* to come up with new options. Like in the conflict between QM and GR. So then we have to choose from existing options because we can’t trivially just ‘be creative’ to make a new one

I give “another argument that rationality isn’t the same as creativity: we can creatively come up with ways to suppress criticism”

I ask: “If HTV is just a feature of explanations but not a criterion to form rational preferences, does that mean we could rationally adopt Persephone over axis tilt?”

The implied criticism is that that is clearly not what HTV is intended for.

As for ambiguity, I don’t see how it’s ambiguous, at least now, given the additional quotes and the fact that chapter 1 is in large part about preference formation, as I say in #5363.

I address the cherry-picking charge now:

… chapter 1 was in large part about HTV as a way to prefer axis tilt over Persephone. That was a central part of that chapter: to present David’s answer to how we can make rational choices, using axis tilt vs. Persephone as an example.

So, far from being cherry-picked, several pages in BoI, almost a whole chapter, are about preference formation using HTV.

I preemptively address that:

Let me state preemptively that I realize these quotes aren’t exclusively about HTV. There are other factors involved in rational decision-making, such as the outcomes of crucial tests (then again, David does link that to HTV in chapter 1). I give these quotes to show that David recognizes and contributes to the problem of how to form rational preferences throughout BoI from various angles.

I reply:

The question of how we can make rational preferences has been a key philosophical problem since antiquity. Saying HTV isn’t for that is frankly a disservice to Deutsch because it demotes HTV from a genuine philosophical contribution to a mere feature of some explanations that we don’t know what to do with.

I reply: “Why care whether explanations have this feature if not to prefer them?”

There’s no contradiction there. It can be both a feature of explanations and a tool to help us make decisions.

Ben replies that “it is one thing conjecture a theory, it is another thing to compare theories to choose which one to proceed with (tentatively)”; that HTV is meant to help with the latter.

Don’t know why the sudden reference to the rather esoteric topic of sentential logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic Nor does Brett explain what’s wrong with it.

This isn’t merely an issue of what we call things. The difference between rationality and creativity isn’t semantics.

Ben points out to Brett that “the step of conjecturing ideas (or criticisms) is not itself rational or irrational. rationality comes in when it comes time to decide what to do, given your state of knowledge. it is about acting according to your best ideas, rather than coming up with ideas”

My response:

I disagree. Popper suggested measures of corroboration and verisimilitude for rational preference formation *given* a set of *already-created* theories (see quotes and explanations in my answer here: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/137784/relevance-of-poppers-theory-of-corroboration/140003#140003). This is the tradition of preference formation David follows in BoI. Again, we need to take care not to fudge rationality and creativity.

I explain:

Veritula is more advanced. X only has nested commenting, like most other sites. But it has no way to distinguish between comments and criticisms and no way to count pending criticisms. It doesn’t tell you which posts you can rationally adopt. It has no version control, no clear version history, no diffing, no ability to revise most ideas outside a narrow window.

I’m not aware of any other site like Veritula that tells you which posts we can rationally adopt. No site on the market has that capability.

Worth noting that Ben had already linked to an explanation of Veritula in response, but Brett doesn’t seem to read any of the links we send him. I can tell because he keeps having more objections or questions the links already address/answer.

Veritula doesn’t discount that. As I point out to Brett, it “lets us submit new options at any time, and it offers writing tools to make that as easy and enjoyable as possible. It actively encourages the creation of new options.”

If we can have a purely deductive process to tell whether we’re being rational or not, that’s a very good thing. The opposite of something to be concerned about.

I’ve experimentally turned off pretty text wrapping in paragraphs. I’ll give it some time to see how ideas look around the site now. If they look worse on the whole (orphans etc), I can always undo fd699cd.

It’s because of text-wrap: pretty;

Chromium renders it properly. Desktop and mobile Safari doesn’t.

How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054

On tangent to this, I think consequentialism is not a theory of ethics at all, it’s just borrowing from the future as well. Anchoring moral action to predicted (prophecied) consequences is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep ethical deliberation completely.

In other words, it is evil.

Related: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.

I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.

As I wrote to him in response, rationality and creativity are different things. They’re related, and there’s overlap, but you don’t need to code creativity to code rational preference formation. You can outsource creative input to the user, as programs usually do.