Hmmm I think the new version is harder to understand than the old version. The old version gave a colloquial discussion with illustrative examples. The new version uses a formal philosophical argument with a lot of technical terms, and it's taken from an article that sort of assumes readers are already familiar with cluelessness. Premise P3 asserts that our understanding of the far future is "sufficiently coarse-grained" and doesn't explain what that means or why to believe it, but IMO that explanation is the key thing that should be on a wiki page. The primary goal should be to explain to the reader what cluelessness is.
Thanks Michael, helpful! I think the previous version has many other (bigger?) problems, but I share your concern, and I'll try to bring back some helpful stuff from it in the next few days/weeks.
I've now brought back and lightly edited this paragraph that gives a helpful example. I think all the rest had low relevance, was misleading, or outright false.
Many objections/reactions to DiGiovanni's argument would be worth discussing, but I'm worried about transforming this tag page into a long paper. So a lot of work is done by:
Hmmm I think the new version is harder to understand than the old version. The old version gave a colloquial discussion with illustrative examples. The new version uses a formal philosophical argument with a lot of technical terms, and it's taken from an article that sort of assumes readers are already familiar with cluelessness. Premise P3 asserts that our understanding of the far future is "sufficiently coarse-grained" and doesn't explain what that means or why to believe it, but IMO that explanation is the key thing that should be on a wiki page. The primary goal should be to explain to the reader what cluelessness is.
Thanks Michael, helpful! I think the previous version has many other (bigger?) problems, but I share your concern, and I'll try to bring back some helpful stuff from it in the next few days/weeks.
I've now brought back and lightly edited this paragraph that gives a helpful example. I think all the rest had low relevance, was misleading, or outright false.
Many objections/reactions to DiGiovanni's argument would be worth discussing, but I'm worried about transforming this tag page into a long paper. So a lot of work is done by: