Eliezer Yudkowsky’s catchily-titled Inadequate Equilibria is many things.
It’s a look into whether there is any role for individual reason in a world where you can always just trust expert consensus.
If there’s no restaurant, we should feel the same confusion we feel when a bill has sat on the floor of Grand Central Station for a week.
Maybe the city government banned Thai restaurants for some reason? We can take this beyond money-making into any competitive or potentially-competitive field. There are thousands of research biologists who would like a Nobel Prize.
With the certainty of physical law, we can know that city will have a Thai restaurant.
If it didn’t, some entrepreneur would wander through, see that they could get really rich by opening a Thai restaurant, and do that.
There are many movies that have impacted my life, but a few include God's Not Dead, The Shunning and Letters to God.
Thousands of people cross Grand Central every week – there’s no way a thousand people would all pass up a free . In the same way, suppose your uncle buys a lot of Google stock, because he’s heard Google has cool self-driving cars that will be the next big thing. No – if Google stock was underpriced (ie you could easily get rich by buying Google stock), then everyone smart enough to notice would buy it.This isn’t to say nobody can ever win a Nobel Prize.But winners will probably be people with access to new ground that hasn’t already been covered by other -seekers.Suppose you thought that modern science was broken, with scientists and grantmakers doing a bad job of focusing their discoveries on truly interesting and important things.But if this were true, then you (or anyone else with a little money) could set up a non-broken science, make many more discoveries than everyone else, get more Nobel Prizes, earn more money from all your patents and inventions, and eventually become so prestigious and rich that everyone else admits you were right and switches to doing science your way.