Sam

Quantum physicist 🇳🇱 Anglophile 🇬🇧 Fellow at @ConjectureInst · Founder of @OxfordPopper DMs not monitored.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@Gonzonator1982

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@dwarkesh_sp @jacobkimmel My guess is that any 30+ academic is further along in their career and becomes inundated with paperwork.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@DoozerDiffuser @bnielson01 Your use of 'I' is ambiguous.

Each version of 'you' occupies one body, but they share a past: both have the memories of one person, namely the 'original you' before cloning.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@DoozerDiffuser @bnielson01 The 'you' before cloning would not know whether or not he would become the clone, since the clone would share all the memories and experiences of the 'real you' up until the cloning procedure.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

It was fun to hobnob with Peter and Bruce while discussing the relation between probability and Many-Worlds. 😊

[Bruce Nielson @bnielson01]

This week we are joined for the 4th time by physicist @Sam_kuyp!

We discuss: Is probability theory true? Is it useful? Does physical probability exist? Does subjective probability exist? What is the connection between probability theory and physics? Does the Many-Worlds Interpretation make probability theory more true or less true?

I found little that I disagreed with Sam over—which might disappoint people. 😉 There is only one point we have a disagreement over—what does the word "force" mean?—and moments later the disagreement is resolved. 😀

I really appreciate Sam coming on the show and talking with me about this and helping me along in my own study of probability.

https://t.co/BNdw6vW1Pc

[Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst]

Rationality is not a matter of possessing truth.

It is a process of identifying problems, criticising existing ideas, and creatively constructing better ones. This basic programme is remarkably universal.

It can be applied to science, philosophy, politics, engineering, business, and private life.

Historically, something like this attitude became increasingly prominent during the Reformation and later in the Anglo-Dutch Enlightenment, when people began to criticise long-standing beliefs (especially religious ones) rather than accepting them on the authority of others.

Since then, this critical attitude has spread into many domains.

Scientists criticise theories.

Entrepreneurs criticise products.

Philosophers criticise arguments.

Individuals criticise their own decisions and habits.

This, I think, is where the mechanistic picture of rationality goes wrong.

Rationality is not primarily about holding the right beliefs or making the right predictions.

Those things may happen as a consequence of rational inquiry, but they are not what make it rational.

Rationality is the process of creating explanations, exposing them to criticism, and improving them when problems are found.

Knowledge grows not because we possess truth, but because we are able to find and correct errors.

~Conjecture Institute Fellow @Sam_kuyp

[Department of Physics at University of Oxford @OxfordPhysics]

Oxford DPhil students William Cutler and Sophie Decoppet showcased the ABaQuS Trapped Ion Quantum Computing Lab to visitors during the Department of Physics’ recent Lab to Life event.

[Richard Hanania @RichardHanania]

Sanders proposing a bill through which the government would seize half of the ownership of major AI companies.

People should stop treating him like a harmless old man. This is deeply sinister.

[Chris Freiman @cafreiman]

A reminder that, as bleak as our political situation is, science and commerce continue to relentlessly make life better.

[Bruce Nielson @bnielson01]

I agree with Sam that Aella is mistaken to define rationality as simply "holding true beliefs."

But there's a straightforward modification that substantially strengthens Aella's argument. Something like:

"Rationality is the ability to recognize one's errors—and the willingness to correct them."

If you adopt that conception of rationality—which is at least partly compatible with Sam's own view—Aella's original point still seems to hold.

The simple truth is that people are often remarkably irrational about ideas that are tied to their identity. Being highly rational in some other domain—even after extensive study of epistemology, cognitive biases, or techniques for avoiding self-deception—seems to do surprisingly little to mitigate this. They continue to make mistakes that, in a different context—or when confronting someone else's blind spots—they would recognize immediately as the mistake it is.

Sam writes:

"One immediate consequence is that rationality may be highly specific. People are specialised, and someone may be rational in, for example, physics but not in their private life."

I'd rephrase this in a way that I think makes the underlying point clearer:

"One immediate consequence is that irrationality is both highly specific and highly prevalent. People are specialized: someone may be rational in physics while remaining deeply irrational in their private life."

The emphasis shifts slightly, but the core claim remains the same. The interesting fact isn't merely that rationality is domain-specific; it's that even highly rational people often have pockets of persistent irrationality, especially around identity-laden beliefs.

I don't think this is incompatible with Sam's view. This still leave rationality as about solving problems. It just highlights that irrationality is therefore about a lack of desire or ability to solve problems in some domain due to blind spots.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

Inspired by this recent post of @Aella_Girl, I wrote up some thoughts on rationality, including a few criticisms of the rationalist community’s conception of it, in the hope of strengthening her main argument.

https://t.co/74MefsJyV4

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

Inspired by this recent post of @Aella_Girl, I wrote up some thoughts on rationality, including a few criticisms of the rationalist community’s conception of it, in the hope of strengthening her main argument.

https://t.co/74MefsJyV4

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

I agree that intelligence and rationality are distinct, but I wouldn’t define rationality as “holding true beliefs”. We never know which of our beliefs are true.

Rather, rationality is the practice of exposing ideas to criticism and eliminating errors.

[Aella @Aella_Girl]

1. Smart people are often, if not usually, very irrational. I grew up with a mid-140s-IQ-tested dad who believed in Biblical literalism. Intelligence is just a powerful engine, it says very little about your ability to steer.
2. Most prestige in our civilization is built around powerful engines. You get good test scores, pass hard classes, you are 'smart', and we stamp you with phDs and titles like Economist or whatever.
3. (Having well-rounded skills can help but does not save you. You can be a charming top-tier artist who still falls for a crypto scam).
4. Our civilization has very little explicit study into being *rational* - which is, imo, something like 'holding true beliefs'. You might be like 'well 'true' is relative', it's people just disagreeing about values all the way down - but I think this is wrong! There *is* such a thing as 'correct' - you can do things like cure cancer or lift people out of poverty, those are real things!
5. If we want to optimize for people steering in correct directions, we might do things like "have them make predictions about the way things will go, and then track how accurate they are." We might force them to "make beliefs pay rent", where you regularly put your beliefs into positions with high stakes so you can't just conveniently 'not notice' when you're wrong. There's a *ton* of stuff to do in this domain that is completely abandoned by people in academia (though you can find it in stuff like investment funds where they actually end up hurting if they're wrong).
5. When I say smart *and* rational, I mean people who are very good at steering in correct directions, with enough power to get there. I don't think most people in this culture even have a conception of these as meaningfully different!

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

Re: studying rationality, Popper's work on the history of science contains beautiful descriptions of how conceptual problems are identified and solved.

Markets often work similarly: people find problems with existing products and solve them through innovation.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

This is a remarkably well-written review of decoherence, by Guido Bacciagaluppi. It explains why, contrary to popular belief, decoherence exacerbates the measurement problem in traditional formulations while helping explain classicality within Many Worlds.
https://t.co/6eIUxCis5y

[David Kedmey · a/op @DKedmey]

Support foundational research. Support
freedom.

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@BenFerrum LOL

[Paul Raymond-Robichaud @PaulRRobichaud]

I solved a foundational problem for quantum mechanics and all future physics. I am seeking independent patronage to continue unhurried, foundational research.
https://t.co/MHs4xnhL6z

1/2

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

@bnielson01 A particular one you recommend?

[Foundation for Economic Education @feeonline]

@mattwridley ✍🏻

[Sam @Sam_kuyp]

Based.

[Jack @Jackkk]

Bryan Johnson reveals why he uses an umbrella even when it’s not raining and UV levels are low

“90% of physical skin aging is from the sun, so this is a UV umbrella protecting me”