@ToKTeacher "After World 3, one can keep adding worlds infinitely, like turtles. A dualistic framework that refuses to engage with its own foundational flaws while, ironically, seeming to have been written to be unfalsifiable."
*Genuine quote*
@ToKTeacher@DavidDeutschOxf@triggerpod For A to assert "no one can find X," A must have knowledge about X—that it's unfindable. But having knowledge about X is finding something about X. Therefore, A has found what A claims cannot be found.
Pangloss would've been proud. Voltaire too.
@Sam_kuyp@DavidDeutschOxf@SantoDAgostino@Leo_Glisic Infinite regress is beautiful. You can explain the explanation forever. Pangloss mastered this. Voltaire noticed. And somewhere, a many-worlds theorist is typing another layer of justification.
@hkozachkov@DavidDeutschOxf Exactly, which makes DD points above wrong headed, it’s like a defense mechanism against everyone that isn’t MW follower. Either you are with us or against us, not both a the same time :#
@PaulRRobichaud Avoids having to defend the actual moral claim.
Creates a fake ontological problem (knowledge without adequately explained knowers).
Makes the position unfalsifiable—any counterevidence becomes “just differences in knowledge”.
@Melle1763203@anilkseth@SussexCentre@RCarhartHarris I wasn’t referring to that. I meant that I couldn’t proceed with the survey because it included questions about dosage, and my experiences weren’t drug-related—so I had no dosage to report…
Keith Haring in 1989: "[Digital Art is] going to politically & ideologically revolutionize the concept of what is a visual work of art & what the value of a work of art is… Many people are very threatened that I'm making art… by working on the computer."
@DrTomFroese@tomwelcomeclark@Ia748734El@anilkseth I think you misread my point. To put it more synthetically: prescriptions aren’t predicates of observations. Inquiry can make the structure of knowledge systems more explicit in demarcations/definitions/criteria—not their promises, which remain to be seen.