ukj

30 ms·

271.
by ukj 6y ago
What's the "right balance" between Type I and Type II errors when assessing the quality/potential of new research?
272.
by ukj 6y ago
Dictionaries are for looking up linguistic social norms, not meaning. To enforce any social norm/standards (even a linguistic/semantic one) is moral arbitration! A dictionary is in no position to tell me what I mean when I use the
273.
by ukj 6y ago
This is but an error in interpretation. An object that can contradict itself is not self-defeating - it is self-affirming! I do not exist.
274.
by ukj 6y ago
A language that cannot express contradictions is too restricted for any practical purposes. —Any programmer Contradiction != self-defeat. Is just side effects. A becoming not-A.
275.
by ukj 6y ago
Category theorist: What is the universal property for “realness”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_property
276.
by ukj 6y ago
These were your words: "a snail’s shell expresses it (the golden ratio)" You connected the dots between the two...
277.
by ukj 6y ago
I don't have strong feelings towards anything you've said (in fact, I read Lakatos' paper just last weekend). You could say that I agree in general. Much of what you point out is also what Quine identified in his paper "
278.
by ukj 6y ago
You could say that. But then it begs the question "What does it mean to understand?" Either way, we index the pattern in our respective minds. You index (understand?) it as a "Golden ratio". I index (understand?) it as a
279.
by ukj 6y ago
To me, the value of Philosophy isn't in learning any particular jargon/terminology (any more than learning the jargon of "symmetry groups" is a useful activity) - the value is in the general understanding of the process
280.
by ukj 6y ago
It's not at all a conflict. I am simply pointing out that where both of us observe/experience the pattern, your mind ascribes to it significance by relating it to the Mathematical construct called "Golden ratio". My mind
281.
by ukj 6y ago
Note how you are ascribing Mathematical meaning to a snail shell. You are somehow insisting that the mathematical expression (1 + sqrt(5))/2 is in some ways similar to a snail shell. Don’t you find it even a little strange that just ab
282.
by ukj 6y ago
The line of reasoning is purely speculative. Since we are the only species who have Mathematics, I will continue insisting Maths is invented, till we can compare notes with other life forms.
283.
by ukj 6y ago
And just one post back you recommended a Philosophical essay ;)
284.
by ukj 6y ago
Sure. Any argument for structuralism is countered by non-structuralist/post-structuralist.
285.
by ukj 6y ago
Consistency is an overrated value...
286.
by ukj 6y ago
One of the interesting questions (without any satisfactory answers) in Philosophy is “How does language relate to the world?” Perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps language is just a tool we, humans, use for thinking and representing our knowledge. M
287.
by ukj 6y ago
>Falsifying one’s own biases is much more fun... Meaning... Looking for evidence AGAINST the very thing you've convinced yourself of.
288.
by ukj 6y ago
This is unsurprising given that abstract algebra/type theory/category theory are often viewed through the philosophical lens of Srtucturalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_m...
289.
by ukj 6y ago
It stands indeed. It stands a few lines below the answer.
290.
by ukj 6y ago
Might you be responding to half of my post?
291.
by ukj 6y ago
I am able to see both Orwell’s tyranny AND Huxley’s tyranny. If I frame all dysfunctional human interactions through the lens of “tyranny” then I see “tyranny” everywhere. That is how all confirmation biases works. That is why they are all
292.
by ukj 6y ago
If Big Brother hadn't published 1984 would you even know how they really operate? (this comment is a tribute to https://xkcd.com/966/ )
293.
by ukj 6y ago
"Poor fit" is an ironic choice of words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_of_fit Fundamentally statistics is Information theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_e
294.
by ukj 6y ago
>Ah. Not read Shannon himself, so wasn't aware he used his own special definition of surprise. You must have missed it then... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wi
295.
by ukj 6y ago
This seems like an unnecessary ad hominem. Just because something is factually incorrect doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Surprise is a measure of new Information (ref: Shannon). It is simply a tautology. To be unsurprised is to provide the answ
296.
by ukj 6y ago
Red herring. Trivial and non-trivial surprises are still surprising.
297.
by ukj 6y ago
It is Shannon’s definition. Surprise == new information. Lack of surprise == lack of new information.
298.
by ukj 6y ago
Because the field is so broad and often highly technical I strongly recommend avoiding getting rabbit-holed. Focus on breath rather than depth. Survey the landscape first - get a hand-wavey high level understanding on the two primary school
299.
by ukj 6y ago
The hardest problem (still) is decidability. Trying to decide whether you fit in the “conventional” or “non-conventional” category; then trying to decide whether you committed a Type I or a Type II error on the previous task.
300.
by ukj 6y ago
Would you prefer it if the system was designed to failed open? e.g you could override the security system with a signal jammer.

More ›