Benjamin Davies
@benjamin-davies·Member since October 2025
Badges
Activity
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
Added “easy to vary” example
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
#2239·Dennis HackethalOP revised 15 days agoPasting #2079 here as it’s since been hidden in a resolved child thread and should have applied directly to #2074 in the first place.
My current view is that the only meaningful dichotomy is good vs. bad.
You say yourself in #2071 that one should “always avoid positive arguments.” Calling a theory “good” would be a positive argument.
As I say in #2065, Popperian epistemology has no room for ‘good’ or any other justification. I’m not aware that anyone has successfully proposed a way to measure the ‘hard-to-varyiness’ of theories anyway. We can criticize theories for being arbitrary (which is another word for ‘easy to vary’). That’d be fine. But Popper wouldn’t give them points for not being arbitrary. And arbitrariness isn’t the only type of criticism a theory might receive anyway.
If we follow Popper and get rid of justification, we can’t use ‘good vs bad’ because we can’t use ‘good’. The only dichotomy left standing is ‘has some bad’ vs ‘has no bad’. Another word for ‘pointing out some bad’ is ‘criticism’. So this dichotomy can be rephrased as: ‘has pending criticisms’ vs ‘has no pending criticisms’, or ‘has reasons to be rejected’ vs ‘has no reasons to be rejected’. Note that there’s a difference: if you think some idea is bad, you submit a criticism. If you think it’s good, you can still submit a criticism because it might not yet be as good as you want it to be. So regardless of how good a theory might be, it can still have pending criticisms, and thus reasons to reject it. Think of Newtonian physics, which (I’m told) is a superb theory, but it’s false and (as I understand it) has plenty of pending criticisms.
‘Has pending criticisms’ vs ‘has no pending criticisms’ is directly comparable whereas ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aren’t directly comparable. And ‘has n pending criticisms’ vs ‘has m’ or ‘has 0 pending criticisms’ are even numerically comparable.
Veritula does not implement Deutsch’s epistemology. It implements Popper’s. I don’t think they’re compatible.
(As an aside, I’m not sure how I could implement Deutsch’s epistemology even if I wanted to. Would I give each idea a slider where people can say how ‘good’ the idea is? What values would I give the slider? Would the worst value be -1,000 and the best +1,000? How would users know to assign 500 vs 550? Would a ‘weak’ criticism get a score of 500 and a ‘strong’ one 1,000? What if tomorrow somebody finds an even ‘stronger’ one, does that mean I’d need to extend the slider beyond 1,000? Do I include arbitrary decimal/real numbers? Is an idea’s score reduced by the sum of its criticisms’ scores? If an idea has score 0, what does that mean – undecided? If it has -500, does that mean I should reject it ‘more strongly’ than if it had only -100? And so on. Deutsch says you haven’t understood something if you can’t program it, and I don’t think he could program his epistemology.)
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.
#2515·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 days agoSorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
#2478·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoI suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?
Since I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479, I will make a new criticism. I think #2479 is unclear.
I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
A small downside is that a bounty can go on indefinitely, but that is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.
#2494·Erik OrrjeOP, 3 days agoThanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.
Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.
Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.
So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.
Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.
The scarcity of a useless thing doesn’t make it less useless.
#2494·Erik OrrjeOP, 3 days agoThanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.
Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.
Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.
So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.
Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability
These are all secondary values.
The durability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The portability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The divisibility of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
Etcetera, etcetera.
The only demand for something like this comes from either a mistaken understanding of what ‘value’ is/means (e.g. believing that the ‘durability’ of something otherwise useless makes it valuable), or from the Keynesian Beauty Contest linked above.
This dynamic makes cryptos wonderful as instruments of speculation, but they will never be money unless they are backed by some independently useful commodity (which IIRC some actually are), or are made legal tender by some government (which defeats the point).
#2495·Erik OrrjeOP, 3 days agoIs "it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy" easy to vary? Could be made harder to vary by explaining the technicals of zero-knowledge proofs as well (though I'm not konwledgeable enough to do that here).
The part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
#2478·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoI suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?
The counter-criticism moves the deadline forward again the same fixed amount.
#2473·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoAs much as I dislike LLMs, I’m thinking of using them to show summaries of discussions at the top of the page. Summaries would reflect ideas without pending criticisms.
I think definitely worth trying, sounds like fun
#2472·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoBut then bad actors could always submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to avoid paying.
The timeframe to address the criticism should start counting down from the moment the criticism is made, rather than the original post. So it would be a continuous thing rather than a single deadline for everyone.
The OP could end the bounty if there are no outstanding criticisms and he no longer seeks a solution.
#2471·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoI’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline.
Yes, that was what I was thinking. Presumably the OP could set their own deadline timeframe too.
#2470·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoSome people – and I don’t know if this includes you or not – are overly worried about getting embarrassed or making silly mistakes.
There are some exceptions where reputation needs to be taken very seriously, but I think the general view to take in this matter is that no one cares. Think of the deepest embarrassment you’ve ever felt – and then try to replace that feeling with how others felt about your situation.
Like, if you’re on stage playing the guitar in front of hundreds of people, and you hit the wrong note, you may feel embarrassed. But many people didn’t even notice. And those who did probably didn’t care nearly as much about the mistake as you did.
I think it is more that it is a permanent record of things I have written that may one day be used as an attack vector. It means I need to really mean what I write, so that I can stand behind it (even as potentially an honest mistake) if someone tries to use it against me.
#2461·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoIt isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.
Why should reacts persist through revisions?
#2459·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 days agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
How do you ensure the criticism is worthy of the bounty?
Made the comment into criticism
I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.
I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.
I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.
Why not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?
Why not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?
“[Insert favoured cryptocurrency] will become the next money” is an extremely easy to vary statement.
#2362·Erik OrrjeOP, 7 days agoZcash will become the next money. That's because it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy.
Why not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?
#2418·Erik OrrjeOP revised 4 days agoThe reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.
Utility is not a necessary aspect of money. Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sectorshare/#:~:text=The%20jewelry%20industry%20accounted%20for,China%2C%20Russia%2C%20and%20Australia). Another 40% is used for jewellery.
This floor is not so reassuring if the asset were to plummet 50%. Other commodities, such as silver, have a greater industrial utility. That makes it less suitable as money since its value becomes tied to commodity cycles.
The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is mainly due to its scarcity, which puts a limit on money creation (done through fractional reserve banking).
Utility is not a necessary aspect of money.
Money without other use cases only holds value to the degree it can continuously win a Keynesian Beauty Contest in the market.
In other words, it has no underlying value.
#2418·Erik OrrjeOP revised 4 days agoThe reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.
Utility is not a necessary aspect of money. Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sectorshare/#:~:text=The%20jewelry%20industry%20accounted%20for,China%2C%20Russia%2C%20and%20Australia). Another 40% is used for jewellery.
This floor is not so reassuring if the asset were to plummet 50%. Other commodities, such as silver, have a greater industrial utility. That makes it less suitable as money since its value becomes tied to commodity cycles.
The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is mainly due to its scarcity, which puts a limit on money creation (done through fractional reserve banking).
The price of a commodity and the quantity of it in use don’t strictly correlate in the way you suggest here. 50% of gold being tied up in industry, jewellery, etc. does not mean the price floor is at 50% of the current price.
#2418·Erik OrrjeOP revised 4 days agoThe reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.
Utility is not a necessary aspect of money. Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sectorshare/#:~:text=The%20jewelry%20industry%20accounted%20for,China%2C%20Russia%2C%20and%20Australia). Another 40% is used for jewellery.
This floor is not so reassuring if the asset were to plummet 50%. Other commodities, such as silver, have a greater industrial utility. That makes it less suitable as money since its value becomes tied to commodity cycles.
The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is mainly due to its scarcity, which puts a limit on money creation (done through fractional reserve banking).
By the standard you have set here, you have implicitly disqualified Bitcoin and Zcash. If gold is not good enough because it could fall to its price floor (your claim being 50%), then Bitcoin and Zcash are even worse because they have no floor at all. It might be more precise to say the floor is zero.