steven

math | music | misc

[steven @thestevemo]

@dumbahey @MerriamWebster aren't you pointing out a meta-coincidence (that PIE-night looks like PIE-eight with an "n" in front of it), and they're pointing out the latin/german inheritance of this meta-coincidence?

[steven @thestevemo]

@MattZeitlin midwit here. what i actually find suspicious is people assuming category labels associate with modes in the distribution, that don't actually exist. e.g. intro/extrovert, gen-whatever, .. label still useful tho and real in some sense

[steven @thestevemo]

but if any of those assumptions change, you very quickly push into a region where red is correct. Sam and Hank aren't crazy, they'll pick red too. (right??)
9/9

[steven @thestevemo]

gonna wade in on this dumb thing bc i think N=3 is super instructive and haven't seen anybody discuss it.

instead of a faceless mass, picture you and two buddies. this highlights why blue only makes sense under very specific assumptions.

so there's 3 scenarios:

1/N

[Tim Urban @waitbutwhy]

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

[steven @thestevemo]

so it does come down to the assumptions. if you truly think every person is an exact 1/2 coin flip on this issue, you're highly confident on this, and you value your own life equal to everyone else's, then pick blue. that's the bright blue spot at the bottom of this chart. 8/N
https://t.co/Ey9uLNFQgo

[Cʟᴏᴠɪs @Aves_Clovis]

The expected difference in lives saved for going blue vs red depending on what proportion of people you think will select blue and how confident you are.

[steven @thestevemo]

@ZyMazza related, it seems surprising the closest we've come to ASI is via (embedded) *language*. something sublime abt language -- God said let there be light, logos, kalam Allah, Hindu's Vāc, ..

[steven @thestevemo]

@ZyMazza regardless of ontology, i think no. for ex, a materialist would say "prayer" is a self-induced delusion created by additional neurons firing than just reading the text. and of course a dualist would say the soul needs to be engaged.

[steven @thestevemo]

@Leophilius Newtonian physics “characterized” gravitational force, and had enormous empirical basis for 200 yrs. Ability to characterize ≠ knowledge of reality, is my point.

We probably disagree on the nature of scientific knowledge in a way unresolvable here in a twitter thread

[steven @thestevemo]

@Aldebrmasch @Leophilius yes lol totally. i need to back away from this whole thread, i was just trying to make a small philosophical concession for Sandy's point

[steven @thestevemo]

@brett02e @doublespeak152 @Leophilius i completely concede i am gesturing at model-fallibility and you're raising real points about the load-bearing centrality of FTL impossibility to physics via causality.

but our reasons to think causality is inviolable are still *reasons* we *think*, not unassailable truths IMO

[steven @thestevemo]

@SariegoAlonso @doublespeak152 @Leophilius yes, totally. i only hoped to loosen the sense of death grip i sensed in the OP's assuredness, which is IMHO anti-scientific. (and let's not forget this is all in response to a sci-fi comment)

[steven @thestevemo]

@brett02e @doublespeak152 @Leophilius i don't think this lands. of course i think it's possible. i also think it is highly improbable, even to practical exclusion from consideration.

also am no physicist but, skeptical of your claim that impossibility of FTL travel is more certain than conservation of mass

[steven @thestevemo]

@GobbledWobbles @schmitteposter @Leophilius i mean, you seem to be missing the point. you admit we are reliant on models, but seem to refuse consideration of the possibility of different, better models ever being discovered? (better = better explains the empirical evidence)

[steven @thestevemo]

@Leophilius we don't have epistemic access to the structure of spacetime. we have models with enormous empirical basis. so no, i technically disagree with your wording.

i'm not saying this carelessly, like "bc it's a model we toss it out the window". obviously not