Thenameless one

I am. At least something is…….

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@worldviewdesign @limitandmind I see. Tbh I don’t really think of this whole thing as a problem. God’s nature necessarily caused C (God creates the best possible world as it’s in his nature to do so). The statement seems necessarily true and erases the need to ask what caused it.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@worldviewdesign @limitandmind Perhaps (though I don’t think it’s unreasonable to reject it. A timeless condition can still be contingent).

But if you’re going that route then why not just invoke it in the original version of the problem. Afterall, God (nor his causing C) doesn’t occur in time either.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@worldviewdesign Since I’m now seeing the original post I figured I’d send my critique here:

https://t.co/jJ3L4RMD2A

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@limitandmind @worldviewdesign Won’t lie, this feels like a cop out. Rather than events causing events we move to conditions causing events. But events seem to just be a series of conditions in order. “I moved from A to B” just describes a series of conditions in which I start at A and end at B.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@limitandmind @worldviewdesign Even if you don’t accept this concept of events, one can still draw the point I think a reasonable critique might make: an analagous form of “every event has a cause”. And that is, “Every condition has a cause.”
And I think this just brings the problem back.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@limitandmind @worldviewdesign Won’t lie, this feels like a cop out. Rather than events causing events we move to conditions causing events. But events seem to just be a series of conditions in order. “I moved from A to B” just describes a series of conditions in which I start at A and end at B.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@RichardHanania Not shocking. For starters AI companies actually want their models to steer clear of politics. Furthermore these are the kinds of issues that are not suitable for AI to solve (unless of course, we leave all jobs, including the presidency to AI).

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@BeepBuild @rirkby @scottythegoat @ns123abc 3. We would actually need to confirm that the simulations are actually accurate and that would mean we may have to actually run trials confirming that (a lot of them).
4. Those simulations wouldn’t account for environmental factors that may affect results.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@BeepBuild @rirkby @scottythegoat @ns123abc 1. We are nowhere near close to being close to that. (We aren’t even close to being close to mapping a human brain).
2. It’s not yet clear that even with that governments would approve drugs that worked in simulations without actual human trials.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@glyphikon You’re also being rather vague. What’s the notion of causality in QM that’s incompatible with GR. And what alternative approach is there?

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@glyphikon There are other interpretations of QM that aren’t observer dependent in that same sense. Indeed, none of the various interpretations has made unifying QM and GR any easier.
Did Kant heavily influenced QM, maybe. But don’t act like that’s the reason for physics’ stagnation.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@rirkby @scottythegoat @ns123abc Yeah and that’s useful. But analysis takes up a small percentage of the time involved in making these breakthrough technologies.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@thomasfbloom @AGamburd18746 @nihilunbounded @AlexKontorovich With regards to the value of a mathematician, to the extent that we use papers they co-author, I don’t see how we can go beyond the quantity and qualityof their outputs (I’m not sure AI disclosure needs to matter here).

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@thomasfbloom @AGamburd18746 @nihilunbounded @AlexKontorovich I actually think that we should disclose AI use to the last detail, but that’s mainly because I think there are things we can learn from knowing how it was used and can build on it.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@AGamburd18746 @thomasfbloom @nihilunbounded @AlexKontorovich Sorry this is a bit confusing. What are you responding to?

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@thomasfbloom @AGamburd18746 @nihilunbounded @AlexKontorovich My question is, which is preferable? A mathematician who can produce two papers without AI or one who can produce 20 papers of equal quality but with AI.
You mentioned that the earlier is a better mathematician, but what is the greater value that he offers? To maths and society?

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@PAHoyeck Hella tough for me. Kant speaks to me so well but he built himself on the foundations that is Hume. Furthermore, while I rate the content of the Critique rather highly, I think the book itself is almost unreadable.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@glyphikon @KirillMagidson What’s the basis for this take? Almost all physicists approach their work with the mindset that they are digging at fundamental reality.

To the extent that there is stagnation in physics it is because the low hanging fruits have been plucked.

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@CSavage66 @PAHoyeck Fair enough.😂😂

I’ve always thought of philosophy as the art of engaging with that confusion. Naturally, i always end up more confused.💀

[Thenameless one @Descartesmind]

@CSavage66 @PAHoyeck I can see you haven’t spoken with these philosophers.