3 ms·
He mentions that “deterministic” means “discrete” or dichotomized, presumably opposed to probabilistic or “real” values. I found it funny he spends the entire
by jchook 7y ago
He mentions that “deterministic” means “discrete” or dichotomized, presumably opposed to probabilistic or “real” values.
I found it funny he spends the entire article eliciting a dichotomy between thinking “deterministically” (dichotomized) and thinking non-deterministically.. yet chiefly to form the suggestion that one should not make such dichotomies to better understand things.
How could we model the co-existence of the discrete and dichotomized with the continuous and probabilistic... without involving at least one dichotomy?
- lioeters 7y agoI found the term "deterministic" confusing too, probably because I'm more familiar with it being used in a different context. He uses the phrase "inappropriate discretization", which fits better with what he's describing as a problem in how we think. To me it seems to boil down to "duality" being a fundamental property/strategy of thinking. Buddhist philosophy points this out in numerous ways, and the paradox/contradiction inherent in it. From the article's conclusion: > ..When we’re talking about the problems of deterministic thinking, or premature collapse of the “wave function” of inferential uncertainty, we really are talking about a failure to incorporate enough of a continuous view of the world in our mental model. I think the point is that we should be more willing to accept uncertainty and probabilities in thinking about the world, rather than build mental models on "false certainties" and "dichotomania" that reduces the world to what we think we know and understand.