2 ms·

I agree with the practicality of thinking of 3 as one ideal that can be emulated by the 5 year old or the PhD. Yes you could argue they're not really the same 3

I agree with the practicality of thinking of 3 as one ideal that can be emulated by the 5 year old or the PhD. Yes you could argue they're not really the same 3. Just like you'd be hard tasked with finding two identical oranges to the atom scale. But that doesn't feel like it gets me anywhere. I just don't have a straight refutation for it. Similarly, solipsism feels like trying to reason with the kid that shouts "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU~" at the start of each sentence. I'll have to think more about evolutionary pocket calculators and computational equivalence. There's definitely some sneaky stuff at play https://youtu.be/92WHN-pAFCs https://youtu.be/92WHN-pAFCs

pas 4y ago
"Soap bubbles are computational so everything is computational." Wait, what? So get a wood panel, put a few pegs on it, submerge it in soapy water and then slowly raise it from the water. The soap film that forms between the pegs wants to minimize its surface area (to maximize its energy) so it forms a Steiner tree beteween the pegs, but .. not always! https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1720 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1720 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=122 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=122 > solipsism feels like Yes, exactly, yet it's unfalsifiable. Which makes it unscientific, but doesn't make it incorrect. It's just a maximally useless (trivial) model of the world.