3 ms·

> he's not a physicist, not even vicariously Upon reflection, I do share the physicists' annoying-to-everyone-else habit of believing I can take subjects upon

> he's not a physicist, not even vicariously Upon reflection, I do share the physicists' annoying-to-everyone-else habit of believing I can take subjects upon which books worth of ink have been spilled, do some Procrustean projection, and address them (to zeroth order, anyway?) reasonably with dozens of symbols. Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/

mistermann 2y ago
Physics is almost entirely deterministic (the exception being quantum mechanics, which seems just short of it). Metaphysics on the other hand seems to not only be not deterministic, it is often the opposite of it (at least at the level we can discern, though there is no consensus on levels or perspectives). > address them...reasonably Is there an implicit epistemic assertion here, or are you using these terms colloquially (as most physicists / scientists do in my experience)?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  defo colloquially, because (in the tradition of M Jourdain) I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? When I say "[I] address subjects reasonably", I guess I'm trying to implicitly communicate a few things: (a) if I gave you a model of a large rock, and you find something physical that can be mapped onto what I claim to be a large rock, and thereupon proceed to kick it, then no matter what your (or my) epistemic views "reasonably" suggests the model predicts that your foot will hurt before long. (b) this model is continuous: the "easier" it is to map your bundle of sense-perceptions onto my ideal rock, the "better" my theoretical prediction of pedal pain will hold up in practice. (c) pace James, "you get what you pay for": given that it took you seconds or minutes to understand the cheap and cheerful model, don't expect it to make better predictions than another model that takes days or years to understand. for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?)
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > M Jourdain Who dat? > I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? In this case: click inside white rectangle box, push some buttons on keyboard to generate a series of symbols, then click on rectangle with symbol "reply" on it. Easy peasy, so much so it is almost intuitive, or sub-perceptual. > if I gave you a model of a large rock Westerners (I presume?) and literally every single modern day ~philospher I've met do love their always physical based analogies! Is red really red? Is a chair really a chair? Great stuff, surely a catalyst for great revolution (any day now). For fun, now do "Coup d'état, at the object level, in an epistemically sound manner (in case not obvious: this is a reference to the Jan 6 mass psychological spectacle). Or: "COVID", or "[The] Science", or "Democracy" (our Most Sacred Institution). > for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 Yikes....thank you, but this will take some time to process! > (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?) This sounds interesting, but you have lost me (I did find out what a "gimme cap" is, but that's as far as I can get). Could you explain please? (Apologies for unnecessary antagonism, I attribute it to lack of free will.)
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Fs_(evolution)#Four_Fs_and_vertebrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Fs_(evolution)#Four_Fs_an... https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96258071/f32.item https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96258071/f32.item https://www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immaterialism/ https://www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immater... Say we wish to encourage, at best type 2 thinking, and at least confidence in the ability of others to use type 2 thinking: could we come up with simple models, well within the compass of a habitual type 1 thinker (and applicable to what they consider problems), but critically involving a single inference? If so, these might be the equivalent of gimme caps in that practicality leads to ubiquity leads to —at least with regard to simple argument— improved ability?
      - mistermann 2y ago

mistermann 2y ago

Physics is almost entirely deterministic (the exception being quantum mechanics, which seems just short of it). Metaphysics on the other hand seems to not only be not deterministic, it is often the opposite of it (at least at the level we can discern, though there is no consensus on levels or perspectives). > address them...reasonably Is there an implicit epistemic assertion here, or are you using these terms colloquially (as most physicists / scientists do in my experience)?

082349872349872 2y ago
defo colloquially, because (in the tradition of M Jourdain) I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? When I say "[I] address subjects reasonably", I guess I'm trying to implicitly communicate a few things: (a) if I gave you a model of a large rock, and you find something physical that can be mapped onto what I claim to be a large rock, and thereupon proceed to kick it, then no matter what your (or my) epistemic views "reasonably" suggests the model predicts that your foot will hurt before long. (b) this model is continuous: the "easier" it is to map your bundle of sense-perceptions onto my ideal rock, the "better" my theoretical prediction of pedal pain will hold up in practice. (c) pace James, "you get what you pay for": given that it took you seconds or minutes to understand the cheap and cheerful model, don't expect it to make better predictions than another model that takes days or years to understand. for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?)
- mistermann 2y ago
  > M Jourdain Who dat? > I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? In this case: click inside white rectangle box, push some buttons on keyboard to generate a series of symbols, then click on rectangle with symbol "reply" on it. Easy peasy, so much so it is almost intuitive, or sub-perceptual. > if I gave you a model of a large rock Westerners (I presume?) and literally every single modern day ~philospher I've met do love their always physical based analogies! Is red really red? Is a chair really a chair? Great stuff, surely a catalyst for great revolution (any day now). For fun, now do "Coup d'état, at the object level, in an epistemically sound manner (in case not obvious: this is a reference to the Jan 6 mass psychological spectacle). Or: "COVID", or "[The] Science", or "Democracy" (our Most Sacred Institution). > for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 Yikes....thank you, but this will take some time to process! > (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?) This sounds interesting, but you have lost me (I did find out what a "gimme cap" is, but that's as far as I can get). Could you explain please? (Apologies for unnecessary antagonism, I attribute it to lack of free will.)
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Fs_(evolution)#Four_Fs_and_vertebrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Fs_(evolution)#Four_Fs_an... https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96258071/f32.item https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96258071/f32.item https://www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immaterialism/ https://www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immater... Say we wish to encourage, at best type 2 thinking, and at least confidence in the ability of others to use type 2 thinking: could we come up with simple models, well within the compass of a habitual type 1 thinker (and applicable to what they consider problems), but critically involving a single inference? If so, these might be the equivalent of gimme caps in that practicality leads to ubiquity leads to —at least with regard to simple argument— improved ability?
    - mistermann 2y ago