Can We Agree on Anything for Sure?
What is going on at the LessWrong platform?
A better title for this post is “Can we agree and can we agree to disagree about knowing something for sure? However, that is too long for a title.
I recently opened an account at the writer’s platform LessWrong. It seemed, from reading some posts by other authors, and the description of the platform’s purpose, to be a place where interesting dialog about ideas was occurring. LessWrong claims to be a platform in pursuit of epistemological knowledge of truth. I was excited to find the LessWrong platform.
So far, I have made just a few posts at LessWrong. You can see them by visiting my LessWrong platform: https://www.lesswrong.com/users/al-link At this point, I am not sure if I will make any further posts on that platform. Here’s why.
Apparently my “downvote karma” is -24 for my post “Secret Cosmos: Introduction,” and my total karma is -30 based upon my two previous short posts, when I first opened my LessWrong account (three post total so far, not counting my bio post; I don’t think anyone can downvote a bio page).
I guess that means 30 people actually said they did not like my post? It is not clear from the explanation of “rate limit” posted at LessWrong if that is what -30 means. The number -30 I understand, but I remain baffled nonetheless. Thirty people down-karma-voted my posts? Really? Only one person so far has ventured to say why they down-karma-voted my posts; no one else left any comment at all. Sort of like, when the KKK burns a cross on someone’s front lawn, but cover their faces. LessWrong readers, it’s only an analogy folks, don’t get your knickers in a knot. If you beleive it is a bad analogy, perhaps unfair to LessWrong?, just ignore it.
Note: I really do not have any issue with 30 people not liking my ideas, but not liking my ideas without saying a word about what it is they disagree with, is not my idea of rational dialog in search of truth. I acknowledge that everyone is welcome, even to a wrong opinion, but common courtesy and etiquette suggest they defend whatever opinion they have with something more fundamental to justify that opinion. I do remain open to changing my mind, notwithstanding there are things that I know for sure.
In any case, what -30 does apparently mean is that I am forbidden to post at LessWrong again for two weeks. Egaaads! But do not worry about me, I assure you I am not having a horrible, terrible, no-good, really bad day because of it. That would be wild overexaggeration.
Surprised (not shocked) and disappointed would be just about right.
I am certain, whatever -30 means, it is not good for me, and furthermore, I also believe it is not good for the other users of LessWrong, nor is it good for LessWrong. This seems a rather surreal beginning of my relationship with LessWrong; surreal because it is more suggestive of a cult platform than an authentic dialog platform. An authentic dialog platform would be open to differences of interpretation, particularly about abstract ideas.
LessWrong is not feeling to me like some warm friendly place where all ideas can be openly discussed and debated, even to include challenging each other’s ideas by disagreeing with them based upon sound logical inference (what a radial intellectual idea that is!). It feels rather more like book-banning hysteria as currently occurring in Florida…just another analogy folks.
I really do hope I have misinterpreted what is going on at LessWrong, but it all just seems to come down to, some of the folks at LessWrong really cannot tolerate the apparently dangerous idea that certainty could be not only possible, but actually necessary. I hope for all of our best interests, that is not actually the case with LessWrong. If it turns out that LessWrong is really an intolerant platform, I will simply not return there looking to engage its users in any further rational dialogue about truth.
Yudkowsky, thank you for making yourself known to me, by leaving a comment.
This Substack post is my reply to Yudkowsky’s comment on my LessWrong post, “Secret Cosmos: Introduction,” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Agyg3vtyBQYQ7FmHu/secret-cosmos-introduction#comments and also a response to his post “Infinite Certainty” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, https://www.lesswrong.com/s/FrqfoG3LJeCZs96Ym/p/ooypcn7qFzsMcy53R
Note to my Substack readers: Yudkowsky did not really comment on my post, he just left the link to one of his previous posts, which presents statements that seem to be in contradiction with the statements that I made in mine. Fair enough. I clicked on his post link and read it.
Here is the reply that I would have posted in response to Yudkowsky, but was blocked from doing so. Perhaps I’ll repost it at LessWrong in two weeks; or perhaps not. I am quite capable of persistence, but not sure at this point if LessWrong is worth it. If you are a LessWrong user who has found this Substack post, you can elect to follow my writing by subscribing free.
“In “Absolute Authority,” I argued that you don’t need infinite certainty…” Yudkowsky
I am certain that when I refer to certainty, I am not saying we “need infinite certainty.” Yudkowsky creates a straw man argument, that rather avoids or misses my actual meaning. For instance, he tries to make the case that infinite certainty is not “needed,” and I say, so?
My thesis is that certainty is possible. We will not literally die without it, but wouldn’t it be rather desirable to be sure of something? I believe with strong-feeling-belief certainty of justified knowledge that certainty is not only possible, it is necessary. It is impossible that exist is impossible; it is impossible that true is impossible; it is impossible that now is something other than exactly what it actually is.
Yudkowsky:
“we must distinguish between the map and the territory”
“the map is not the territory”
He seems pretty certain about that. In any case, I am certain about that and I am certain we are in agreement about it. No description is identical with the thing described. There is no purr and no fur in the word cat.
I have personally found that living inside my abstractions rather than reality, was unsatisfactory. I believe a great deal of mental illness is precisely living in abstractions about life rather than living an actual life.
Yudkowsky’s denial of certainty is almost entirely dependent upon his interpretation of probability (read his post if you have not done so already). Hint: probability is 100% mathematical abstraction. Probability is 100% possible and potential, but zero actual. Of course, probability is very useful, but not because it defeats certainty. His conclusion that probability defeats certainty is false.
In my cosmology, ontology (= information about existence) and epistemology (= information about truth) define real. Real = exist + true.
Probability can tell us nothing about exist now, true now or real now.
He refers to 2 + 2 = 4 which is a simple statement of identity in Peano arithmetic. Peano arithmetic is a set of axioms that permit, among other things, that 2 + 2 = 4, but only within the strict logical limits of those axioms which are created in consciousness and do not exist otherwise. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4 is not found in nature, only in human consciousness applying the consciousness power of abstraction. Which is the same function used to name, define and describe anything.
Tautology Equality vs Tautology Identity
In mathematics, the common tautology equality sign with two lines “=” means the numerical value on the left side of the statement (say an equation), is equal to the numerical value on the right side of the statement: 2 + 2 = 4, or 4 x 5 = 20. You will notice that the truth value of the statement holds in both directions, from left to right and from right to left. The mathematical axiom tautology rule from Peano arithmetic is (a + b = b + a), which says equality is symmetric. A great deal of mathematics is intentionally set up (invented or created by consciousness) exactly that way, to be symmetrically reversible. The equality sign always means symmetrically reversible.
All such statements are tautologically true. However, all such statements are man-made tautologies, which means they are only tautologically true within the limits of the mathematical axioms of the system of mathematics, say Peano Arithmetic, therefore not globally true everywhere even in one universe. There are different systems of geometry, calculus, different base number systems, etc., each of which is man-made, and tautologically true only within the strict limitation of the axioms for that system.
Here are three of the mathematical axioms in Peano arithmetic1:
For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
In fact, in all of mathematics, not just the system Peano Arithmetic, the only true identity possible using the equal sign, is in the form 2 = 2 but not 2 + 2 = 4, because it is empirically obvious that 2 + 2 is not identical with 4, however, the same number is necessarily exactly itself, regardless of where or when it is applied; in every possible universe. Same for, say 1 inch = 2.54 cm; that is an equality-of-quantity statement, not a statement of true identity.
Furthermore, use of the equal sign for any other purpose, say humans = mammals, cannot be literally and absolutely true, because the equality of the statement is asymmetric, which means only holds in one direction. It is true that all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans. It is common (I also do it), to use the equality sign loosely, even when the equality is asymmetric, only one way. For instance, humans and mammals are not the same in every comparison, therefore, such a statement is equality-tautology true but not identity-tautology true; it remains rather more metaphorical and less logically literal.
That loose usage of the equal sign is not a serious logical problem in most applications. However, in the context of justified belief, it is a serious problem, because equality is not strong enough to demonstrate justified knowledge, but identity is. Equality-of-quantity is trivial; however, identity is profoundly important. Identity establishes justified ontology-exists knowledge, and justified epistemology-truth knowledge.
In mathematics, the less common sign “≡” with three lines, is sometimes used to mean identity and sometimes to mean equivalence. In my cosmology ≡ is the tautology identity sign (not equivalence), which avoids a lot of unnecessary confusion. In the context of justified knowledge, my usage of, say X ≡ X necessarily means actual tautological identity between the two sides of the statement, because any-thing is exactly, only and always itself. Use of capital X means X can be a symbol referring to anything, therefore everything, that actually does ontologically physically exist. Number 2 is exactly, only and always itself (2 ≡ 2); a worm is exactly, only and always itself (worm ≡ worm); a planet is exactly, only and always itself (planet ≡ planet); a human being is exactly, only and always itself (human ≡ human). We cannot say human = worm or worm = planet, etc., nor can we say human ≡ worm or worm ≡ planet, because those statements are neither equality tautologies nor identity tautologies.
In my cosmology, using the ≡ identity sign alerts you to the fact, by epistemological intention and ontological actual physical existence, the statement is true by absolute tautology identity. Statements of natural a-priori axioms are not in the form of equations, which means there is no ≡ identity sign used, nevertheless, they are statements of absolute tautology identity, which means: 1) any-thing is exactly, only and always itself, 2) true without exception, 3) true for every possible comparison, 4) necessarily globally true everywhere at-once in any particular universe, and 5) necessarily true in every possible universe.
In my cosmology, absolute tautology identity statements, including all natural a-priori axioms and all equations with ≡ identity sign, do not imply, connote or denote two-way reciprocal relations. There is no reciprocal connotation in the five state conditions in the previous paragraph. Absolute tautology identity statements in the form of equations with the equality sign, say x = x, or 2 = 2, do describe necessary symmetrical two-way relations between what is on the left side and what is on the right side, but that is trivial.
In my cosmology, actual ontological identity is necessary, which means it cannot, not be identity, everywhere in every possible universe. I will not use the mathematical identity sign ≡ frequently in my writing, but I will frequently make absolute tautology identity statements expressing necessary truth value. These are all strong statements of justified knowledge combined with strong justified belief, which generates strong justified-knowledge-feeling-confidence.
I’m not prone to exaggeration, but each instance that I see justified knowledge fills me with not only surprise, but also astonishment. To share justified knowledge requires use of predicate superlatives like: all, every, always, never, certain, impossible, necessary, true, proof, consistent, complete, fundamental, whole, justified, a-priori, axioms, conserved, global, universal, everywhere, everything, simultaneous, cosmogony, infinite, etc. However, superlatives correctly apply only to describe something that is actually superlative, otherwise, use of superlatives turns statements into egotistical exaggerated over-belief or artistic metaphors.
For any complete set of mathematical axioms that defines any system of mathematics, say Peano Arithmetic, proof of proof is impossible to attain. Gödel has clearly shown that the totality of mathematics is inconsistent and incomplete, which means mathematics cannot explain itself. If mathematics tries to explain itself it necessarily generates fatal logical contradiction errors, like infinite regress and reification. On other hand, natural a-priori axioms never contradict themselves, never contradict each other, and are never called upon to explain themselves, because by absolute tautological identity certainty, they require no explanation, rather they are self-evidently always true. Every natural a-priori axiom is necessarily considered a truth-carrier statement because generic tautology means any-thing is necessarily exactly, only and always itself.
Also, for example, with pure mathematics, truth value is not even one of the criteria to evaluate the mathematical axioms, rather the primary criterion is some sort of usefulness. Useful is frequently logically far removed from truth. For instance, some find lies very useful. It could be quite confusing if therefore, I did not clearly differentiate between natural and man-made tautological axioms.
It is coherent to suggest, only natural a-priori axioms can be the ground for justified knowledge. As powerful and useful as mathematics is, it cannot be the ultimate ground for justified knowledge. These statements are true, because natural a-prior axioms are always true without reference to any extrinsic proof, but mathematical axioms are totally dependent upon additional extrinsic proof statements in order to gain consensus about their truth value.
Furthermore, it is meta-sound-logical-inference, that application of sound logical inference is necessarily true, but if and only if it is congruent with all, natural a-prior axioms. “If and only if” is a statement of certainty, the same way X ≡ X is a statement of certainty, the same way all, natural a-priori axioms, are statements of certainty, the same way absolute tautological identity is always a statement of certainty.
In addition to natural a-priori axioms and sound logical inference, use of mathematics is useful, but not necessary to establish justified knowledge. The primary usefulness of mathematics is to ensure correct application of scientific knowledge to technological applications, say for instance, to land a human safely on the moon, or to build bridges that do not fall down. I acknowledge those are things of significant importance.
Yudkowsky’s entire logical argument against certainty is a straw man argument, for instance probability cannot defeat certainty. Here’s why.
Certainty is exactly, only and always about now, never about the future.
Probability it exactly, only and always about the future, never about now. Of course, I permit that probability is an abstraction about the future and we do calculations of probability now.
Certainty is not fixed, because now is not fixed. Certainty and now are both perpetual, with no time duration involved. There is literally no sequence of time in now. Of course, I permit that it is now that makes all time possible to exist.
The past does not exist; the past is memory. The future does not exist; the future is imagination. The past is mathematically described with accounting time, for instance a record of past events, that no longer exist except in memory. The future is mathematically described with probability. Probability cannot describe actual existence because actual already exists, therefore some other kind of mathematics must be used to describe anything that already actually does exist.
Tautology is now, not the future. Tautology is true without logical contradiction in every possible universe. Now is, in my cosmology, the ultimately simultaneous medium hosting tautological certainty (among other things).
Natural a-priori axiom tautology: any-thing is exactly, only and always itself, for instance, X ≡ X. Without exception. In every possible universe.
What will be in the future is necessarily uncertain because it does not actually exist, yet. Therefore, probability is the only kind of mathematics that can describe the future.
I have not found any satisfaction living in the future, or living for the future. I acknowledge the importance of trying to anticipate and plan accordingly for the future. I acknowledge the extraordinary power of vision. Nevertheless, all anticipation of the future, all planning for the future, all calculations of probabilities of outcomes in the future, necessarily occur right here, right now. Where else could they occur, other than where they actually do occur? When could they possibly occur that is not now? Regardless of what the abstraction of real clock time says (say 2:00 pm) or a calendar (say any current date), what other actual time could it be other than exactly now? The only life I actually live is exactly, only and always now.
Yudkowsky’s tethering himself so strongly to probability mathematical abstraction tells us absolutely nothing about now, because now exists and is true in every possible universe, without exception, and probability has nothing to do with it.
I am certain that I exist, now.
I am certain that I am alive, now.
I am certain that I am conscious, now.
I am uncertain about the past because memory is so faulty.
I am uncertain about the future, because it does not actually exist, yet.
I am certain this really is a warm fuzzy kitty in my lap, now.
I know when I am actually hungry, now.
I know when I am actually afraid, now.
I know when I am actually happy, now.
I am certain that I am writing these words on my computer, now.
The tragedy for human beings is to let now go by, while they plan for the future, or long for return of the past. Probability is of no use to sort any of that tragedy out; I am certain about that.
