# LessWrong 2.0 Reader

View: New · Old · TopRestrict date range: Today · This week · This month · Last three months · This year · All time

next page (older posts) →

next page (older posts) →

Restrict date range: Today · This week · This month · Last three months · This year · All time

next page (older posts) →

next page (older posts) →

Sorry everyone another update: we're now here: Anthony van Leeuwenhoeklaan park https://maps.app.goo.gl/5pUUfVP2T2g7BiDu8

ssobanska on The Sacred MundaneBut the price of shielding yourself from criticism is that you are cast into solitude—the solitude that William James admired as the core of religious experience, as if loneliness were a

goodthing.

I was surprised by the conflation of words *solitude* and *loneliness *here*. *

I'd say solitude is just a **state** of being alone while loneliness is an **interpretation** (usually negative) of that state by a person.

It's not uncommon for people who are serious about their personal growth/thinking for themselves/creating things to seek solitude as a way of connecting with themselves and making time for creative output. Seen this way, it makes sense to me as a deeply spiritual experience, even if no religious thoughts are involved.

It would be much harder to find people who actively seek loneliness, which I would argue is largely an outcome of feeling disconnected - from significant others but more importantly from oneself.

I'd disagree with idea that one can be cast into solitude. I think we often intentionally choose solitude. And equally often (unfortunately) cast ourselves into loneliness.

alex-hollow on This Can't Go OnThis post is excellent. The airplane runway metaphor hit home for me and I think it will help me explain my worries about exponential growth to other people more clearly than graphs, so thanks for writing it up!

philip_b on Kids Moving PicturesYou have very cute kids :)

tailcalled on What is the evidence on the Church-Turing Thesis?Turing machines are a finite state machine that have access to a memory tape. This was intended to be sort of analogous to humans being able to take notes on unbounded amounts of paper when thinking.

morpheus on What is the evidence on the Church-Turing Thesis?Thanks for the answer!

Human brains are finite state machines. A Turing machine has unlimited memory and time.

Oops! You're right, and It's something that I used to know. So IIRC as long your tape (and your time) is not infinite you still have a finite state machine, so Turing machines are kind of finite state machines taken to the limit for (n→∞) is that right?

ike on Outlawing Anthropics: Dissolving the DilemmaYou can start with Bostrom's book on anthropic bias. https://www.anthropic-principle.com/q=book/table_of_contents/

The bet is just each agent is independently offered a 1:3 deal. There's no dependence as in EYs post.

donald-hobson on What is the evidence on the Church-Turing Thesis?Sometimes in mathematics, you can right 20 slightly different definitions and find you have defined 20 slightly different things. Other times you can write many different formalizations and find they are all equivalent. Turing completeness is the latter. It turns up in Turing machines, register machines, tiling the plane, Conways game of life and many other places. There are weaker and stronger possibilities, like finite state machines, stack machines and oracle machines. (Ie a Turing machine with a magic black box that solves the halting problem is stronger than a normal Turing machine)

Human brains are finite state machines. A Turing machine has unlimited memory and time.

Physical laws are generally continuous, but there exists a Turing machine that takes in a number N and computes the laws to accuracy 1/N. This isn't philosophically forced, but it seems to be the way things are. All serious theories are computable.

We could conceivably be in a universe that wasn't simulateable by a Turing machine. Assuming our brains are simulatable, we could never know this absolutely, as simulators with a huge but finite amount of compute trying to trick us could never be ruled out. 0 and 1 aren't probabilities and you are never certain. Still, we could conceivably be in a situation were an uncomputable explanation is far simpler than any computable theory.

chris_leong on Coordination Schemes Are Capital InvestmentsDid anything in particular motivate starting this sequence?

ryan_b on Book review: The Checklist ManifestoThe tools at work I have used in the past were as much reference material as checklist; this had the effect of making them a completely separate, optional action item that people only use if they remember.

The example checklists from the post are all as basic as humanly possible: FLY AIRPLANE and WASH HANDS. These are all things everyone knows and can coordinate on anyway, but the checklist needs to be so simple that it doesn’t really register as an additional task. This feels like the same sort of bandwidth question as getting dozens or hundreds of people to coordinate on the statement USE THE CHECKLIST.

Put another way, I think that the reasoning in You Have About Five Words is recursive.