This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
...Which presumes you can rank the hypotheses from minimal to less so. By what measure are you ranking them? What are you measuring? If you were measuring something, the thing you were measuring would be evidence, no? If you don't have that, you have nothing to measure, and the measurement is indeterminate.
Suppose we have two integers, each of them incomplete.
[unknown digits excluded]193692 [unknown digits excluded]923013
From that dataset, I do not think there is a way to say which of those numbers is larger. I don't think you can do it with Kolmogorov Complexity. I don't think you can do it with Bayesian Occam's Razor. I don't think you can do it with minimum message length. I don't think you can do it with Shannon entropy. I don't think you can do it at all, in any rigorous, meaningful way. The only correct answer is mu, because there is insufficient data to calculate or reason from.
If I argued that we should presume that the second number is bigger, because of all the numbers we've run into, the ones with a 9 in the leftmost place tend to be larger than numbers with a 1 in the leftmost place, that would not be a rigorous proof that the second number was actually bigger. On the other hand, if we take those two integers and multiply them by zero, we know that the result is precisely zero.
It would be evidence of something, sure. Likewise, I have already agreed that if the Standard model had demonstrated a closed-loop cosmology from within its own logic, that likewise would be evidence that materialistic explanations were simpler. If a physics breakthrough is made that allows the loop to be closed without appealing to unobservables/unfalsifiables, that too would be evidence. None of those have actually happened, though, so none of that evidence is available to influence our decisions here and now.
I don't currently have such expectations, and am not sure why I should. If datapoints contradict my understanding of God, why should I not modify my understanding of God to account for them? In any case, my belief that a God exists to be reasoned about is axiomatic, not conclusive.
Then it seems to me that God may be more complex, but is not necessarily so. If you think it plausible that complexity might be removed by mechanisms you can neither define or demonstrate in any concrete fashion, why should I not do the same? If we could rigorously define and demonstrate such mechanisms, the matter would of course be different. But you can't in the case of "better physics". Likewise, I could submit various ontological arguments, but cannot define or demonstrate their validity either, and so do not count them.
What data does "everything else" provide about what's behind the Big Bang? How does this data allow you to rank the complexity of "physics loop" versus "simulation"?
It seems to me that this fails for the same reason that KC and BOR fail. We don't have a statistical model to compare, so tools for comparing statistical models don't help. Likewise for Bayes: you have no meaningful prior for "thing that exists outside anything we have observed or experienced.", whether that is a basement simulation or a true physics loop. All the evidence tells us such a thing exists. None of the evidence illuminates its nature.
"it's a sim lol" is shorter that "unknown physics maintain a infinite looping universe". Clearly Simulationism is more likely to be correct.
I kid, I kid. Obviously, neither of those arbitrary sentences are a "model" in the sense your excerpt described. ...Only, it seems exceedingly obvious to me that no "models" exist for either simulationism or true-physics, in the sense MML requires to function. This is the same argument I made against KC and BOR, because it seems generally applicable. Am I wrong? Have you confident about the answer here because you've actually crunched the numbers yourself, or have seen someone else who has?
A fair point. Allow me be more specific: All reasoned beliefs are chosen. I have no experience of capgras delusion, nor schizophrenia, so I take no position on the nature of their beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link