ThomPete

15 ms·

151.
by ThomPete 4y ago
That is not the point I was making. My point is that Web 3.0 is not a great con and that it's here to stay and that down the line we won't even think about it. It also being used today, but today we are having the same kind of dis
152.
by ThomPete 4y ago
i posted a few links in another comment
153.
by ThomPete 4y ago
10 years is nothing and again just because you don't know anyone, doesn't mean they don't exist so not sure what you want me to say to that. Plenty of people use is.
154.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Everett interpretation solves it all.
155.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Made another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33229524
156.
by ThomPete 4y ago
If you don't see the value of what is fundamentally a public ledger database, then I am not sure what to tell you. It's being used by many people today. It's not for everyone. It will evolve and at one point we won't ev
157.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Again we are discussing it right now. You don't see the use, I do. Whether I will be right time will tell, I am pretty sure I will, and the idea that this is a useless technology is simply a question of vision. There are plenty of use
158.
by ThomPete 4y ago
This is the thing. You either understand it or you don't. I can get you to see it. I don't have to, in the future it will be just there. Web3 is a special case of wild wild west in a market with way too much money inflating it a
159.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Just because you haven't heard of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is plenty of use for it, it's just not the same as for Web2.
160.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Not everyone agreed it was useful. That's the point. People laughed at email, buying online, payment was even illegal in the beginning. I was also there at the time from the very beginning. This is the same thing. Hype, then crash then
161.
by ThomPete 4y ago
99% of Web3 is crap. 1% pure gold. Same thing with the first .com bubble. AI have been through this too and is now having a revival. Blockchain and Web 3 is not going anywhere it will just not be championed by the current generation. The c
162.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Good questions because you are right, there is path dependency, but I do think a lot would have been different if we had understood earlier that computation is about physics not math.
163.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Another question you might ask is why wasn't the computer invented earlier? Babbage and Lovelace came close but they didn't realize they had (almost) invented a computer they just thought they had invented a calculator. They thoug
164.
by ThomPete 4y ago
"C) there is no difference between saying "There is a 40% chance it happens" and "There is a 60% chance it happens" AND "If there is no difference how could it be based on past experience or whatever?" The
165.
by ThomPete 4y ago
You are missing the point completely. You don't make a probabilistic calculation based on some formula to figure out whether you bring your umbrella with you or not. You just guess, sometime based on past experience. Sometime you are r
166.
by ThomPete 4y ago
The explanation of how different molecules combine when mixed. Has nothing to do with probability. If you can predict that it happens exactly 10% of the time (ex. every 10th time) then you have an explanatory model that can explain why that
167.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Fighting for better modes of explanation is always an uphill battle. The point is that there is no difference between saying. It either happens or it don't. And then There is a 40% chance is happens. The 40% is not based on anything of
168.
by ThomPete 4y ago
You don't get a nobel price for truth. You get a nobel price for significant contributions to the field you are in. Those can be wrong, plenty of noble price winners have been wrong.
169.
by ThomPete 4y ago
I am not sure I understand the question. "Can physics explain that if you put together a glass of water and a glass of ethanol you end up with a mixture of water and ethanol?" Wouldn't that be chemistry (an emergent property
170.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Well given I am a proponent of the Everett interpretation I would say any textbook that talks about quantum wave collapse.
171.
by ThomPete 4y ago
None of that require probability. Ignorance is still ignorance even if you dress it up to sound scientific. You are just guessing.
172.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Any theory that is explainable and hard to vary does not need probability. Can you explain how probability is used in statistical mechanics in a way to contradict what I am saying? P.S. Thanks for being a sport and talk about this in a trul
173.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Probability exist as a concept in our heads just like god and math does. Probability can be used to say something about closed systems like a game of poker using a deck of cards. If 4 aces have been used I know that there will be no more ac
174.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Yes and often I don't end up using it. It will either rain where I am or it wont. I might as well believe in Thor the Thunder God as a theory for why I will bring an umbrella.
175.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Again, give me an example of what we are talking about so we can see what kind of probability we are talking about. And the Nobel price giving credit to something that turns out to be wrong isn't really something novel.
176.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Mathematical theory has no causal effect on reality either. So no I am not missing some bigger point. I might as well make a metaphysical claim like. Thor will make x happen. It's a metaphysical claim.
177.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Explain to me how that refutes what I am saying.
178.
by ThomPete 4y ago
You are missing the point. There is no causal connection between what i describe the probability of X to be and the probability of X. You can say it's 50/50 I can say it's 20/80 none of that have any effect on the outcom
179.
by ThomPete 4y ago
I am not saying what you think i am saying
180.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Everett is your friend

More ›