lisper

22 ms·

361.
by lisper 1y ago
I am the author. > I can only say that I have never met a proponent of MWI who meant this. What can I say? There are a lot of MWI proponents who profess to believe this. Here, for example, is Sean Carroll answering the question, "
362.
by lisper 1y ago
> How would you know? Because that is the best explanation for what I observe. > by declaring that sense data do not reflect reality, you've cut yourself off form the possibility of knowing reality altogether That is true, but on
363.
by lisper 1y ago
> Western nations have dominated the world for centuries I guess that depends on what you consider "the world". It makes no sense to even talk about the West dominating "the world" before 1492. The first truly globa
364.
by lisper 1y ago
That's true. There is a metaphysical reality "out there", but it is radically different from what we perceive. Hence: an illusion. Note that an illusion is emphatically NOT the same thing as a delusion. Illusions are rea
365.
by lisper 1y ago
> Enlightenment peoples currently dominate the world Huh??? How do you figure? AFAICT the world is dominated by Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin (if you reckon by power) or Christians and Muslims (if you reckon by populatio
366.
by lisper 1y ago
> Darwinism isn't a weakness of rationality I didn't say it was. I said that the Rationalist community is not taking the implications of Darwinism into account when they choose where to focus their attention. This is what lea
367.
by lisper 1y ago
> Having a framework does not imply competent execution, Exactly right. It is not rationalism per se that is the problem, it is the way that The Rationalists are implementing it, the things they are choosing to focus their attention o
368.
by lisper 1y ago
> no population selection and reproduction algorithm I never said there was. Darwin said it because he didn't know anything about genes, but that mistake was corrected by Dawkins. > If gender equality and intellectual achievemen
369.
by lisper 1y ago
> it's MWI in disguise That's kind of like saying that GRW is Copenhagen in disguise. It's not wrong, but only because it's making the word "disguise" do some pretty heavy lifting. > MWI is quantum reali
370.
by lisper 1y ago
> why should one have to follow darwinian evolution That depends on what you mean by "follow". You have to "follow" Darwinian evolution for the same reason you have to "follow", say, the law of gravity. Th
371.
by lisper 1y ago
> Darwinian evolution fails to accurately describe real evolutionary processes. That is not correct. Darwin did make a mistake, but it was not the fundamental dynamics of the process, but that he chose the wrong unit of selection. Darw
372.
by lisper 1y ago
> Why can't that observation be taken into account? Of course it can be. I'm saying that AFAICT it generally isn't. > rationalism requires certain prerequisites before it can reliably out compete other approaches Yes
373.
by lisper 1y ago
> It still exists doesn't it? It's controversial, but here is the argument that the answer is "no": See https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf Or if you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.co
374.
How AI Is Ruining the Electric Grid [video](youtube.com)
4 points by lisper 1y ago|1 comments
375.
by lisper 1y ago
If you get down to the quantum level there is no such thing as objective reality. Our perception that the world is made of classical objects that actually exist at particular places at particular times and have continuity of identity is an
376.
by lisper 1y ago
That doesn't seem to be on point to me. I'm not talking about being "caught in bad equilibria". My assertion is that rationalism itself is not stable , that the (apparent) triumph of rationalism since the Enlightenmen
377.
by lisper 1y ago
The term "Darwinian evolution" applies to any process that comprises iterated replication with random mutation followed selection for some quality metric. Darwin himself would not have defined it that way, but he still deserves t
378.
by lisper 1y ago
I think one can levy a much more specific critique of rationalism: rationalism is in some sense self-defeating. If you are rational you will necessarily conclude that the fundamental dynamic that drives the (interesting parts of) the unive
379.
Humans Need Not Apply (2015) [video](youtube.com)
2 points by lisper 1y ago|0 comments
380.
by lisper 1y ago
> Safety isn’t the presence of safe constructs, but the absence of unsafe ones. Exactly. Here is a data point: https://spinroot.com/spin/Doc/rax.pdf Tl;DR: This was software that ran on a spacecraft. Specific
381.
by lisper 1y ago
> we had several distributed version control systems None that worked well. There is a reason Git took over this space. Git is to 2005-era version control systems what Google was to Ask Jeeves and Alta Vista. > and collaboration onl
382.
by lisper 1y ago
It is also worth noting that Gabriel wrote this in 2003. At that time, programming was a much more solitary activity than it is today. Git would not exist for another two years.
383.
Airlines Don't Want You to Know They Sold Your Flight Data to DHS(404media.co)
8 points by lisper 1y ago|0 comments
384.
by lisper 1y ago
The Lorentz factor at 0.5 c is 0.86 so this only reduces your proper travel time by about 15%. Even at 0.9c the LF is only 0.43, so it would still take you 2 years just to get to Proxima Centauri. And as you approach c, 1G acceleration sp
385.
by lisper 1y ago
It only seems incredibly slow in this model because it doesn't take special relativity into account. If it did, then as you approached the speed of light the Lorentz contraction would make wherever you are heading appear less far away
386.
Apollo Docking Sequence – Connecting the Command Module to the LEM [video](youtube.com)
1 points by lisper 1y ago|0 comments
387.
by lisper 1y ago
The comparison of the Dollywood Express ridership to statewide railways is pretty unfair. The Dollywood Express is not really transportation, it's an amusement park ride, more comparable to the Disney Railway than Amtrack, and I'
388.
by lisper 1y ago
Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44236227
389.
by lisper 1y ago
It's much worse than that. The whole US tax system is severely regressive, with labor paying up to 50% incremental rate if your income is low enough, and return on capital paying as little as zero if you have enough of it.
390.
by lisper 1y ago
Thanks, but I think Steven Olson actually deserves more credit than I do: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227B1/en I thought I would have to disguise the bogosity under some plausible-sounding pseudo-scien

More ›