ukj

58 ms·

241.
by ukj 5y ago
What is the utility of truth? If it has none then I don’t need it. Reflexivity is precisely where meaning/religion comes from. From the self.
242.
by ukj 5y ago
I have no idea what you conceptualise as a “religion”; or how you measure “religiosity”. I have a very broad definition - to me any belief system (collection of concepts used for understanding the world) is a religion. Rationalism is one re
243.
by ukj 5y ago
We are social animals. A religion is what scientists call a “paradigm”. The socially acceptable ideas/paradigms of today are the religions of next century. Hegel was right.
244.
by ukj 5y ago
Well…yeah! Religion serves a function. Even if that function is psychological. When you take religion away, something else will fill the utility-gap. Silly humans failing to grasp the purpose of stories/narratives. Edit for the downvot
245.
by ukj 5y ago
Distributed synchronisation is lost upon mathematicians.
246.
by ukj 5y ago
Saying the same thing from yet another perspective: What you call in-band - I call data. What you call out-of-band - I call code. What I call metaprogramming is erasing the distinction.
247.
by ukj 5y ago
Signalling is the same thing as mutability. To signal is to flip a bit. If code is data and data is immutable then code is immutable. I am sure you see the contradiction in objectives.
248.
by ukj 5y ago
Your fundamental flaw is my prized feature. Metaprogramming/reflection would be impossible without treating code as content.
249.
by ukj 5y ago
The thing with “solving open problems” is whether one is solving particular instances of an abstract problem or a general case of a practical problem. The latter is what software engineers call “design patterns.
250.
by ukj 5y ago
That's precisely what it is. Homotopy/Category theory is strongly-normalising. Which is roughly what the Univalence axiom tells us: identity is equivalent to equivalence. The identity type is the normal/canonical/unique
251.
by ukj 5y ago
All notations (programming or Mathematical) are just different ways of expressing computations. All notations have trade-offs at the level of semantics making certain operations more difficult to express (what programmers refer to as '
252.
by ukj 5y ago
The trivial way to unify all camps is to view it from the lens of expressionism/self-expression. Mathematicians want to express equational reasoning/identities. Computer scientists want to express computations. Translation/br
253.
by ukj 5y ago
This paper makes a ton of brilliant points all of which strongly resonate with me: * The results that will last are the ones that can be organized coherently and explained economically to future generations (yes! effective compression!) * H
254.
by ukj 6y ago
In the real world I have access to Google, books, tools, other humans. In the real world I have access to more information than I do in any test. Tests are artificial constraints.
255.
by ukj 6y ago
Well, for starters you have to figure out how you measure "comprehension". Seeming as different brains make different space-time trade-offs when representing/retaining knowledge.
256.
by ukj 6y ago
1 in infinity likelihood is 0.
257.
by ukj 6y ago
Then why do you call it a "possible" outcome?
258.
by ukj 6y ago
The "hard problem" is just Philosophers attempting to remain relevant by inventing problems where there are none. The hard problem isn't knowing if other people are conscious. The hard problem is knowing whether I am consciou
259.
by ukj 6y ago
Nobody is saying that X isn't good. Everybody is saying that X is good, but Y is much better. So if you want to make a productive choice then go for Y, not X! At the very least, if you are going to choose X anyway stop trying to persua
260.
by ukj 6y ago
No, it's not saying that at all. You are missing all the nuance. It's saying that the change which has a small effect is never worth while (and... pay attention now. This is the other part of the post you missed: context).... *IN
261.
by ukj 6y ago
Everything humans do is part of cultural change, because what humans do is change things. The post is about prioritisation. Moving the needle in a way that matters, not merely doing something so we can pat ourselves on the back for doing it
262.
by ukj 6y ago
THE universe? Which one? There are so many!
263.
by ukj 6y ago
It all depends on whether you understand what it means "to understand". There are two schools of thought: School 1: User's knowledge (this idea goes all the way back to Plato). You know how to use existing CPUs and existing p
264.
by ukj 6y ago
The irony in all of this, of course is that you see both theories as two possible models. Which begs the question "What exactly is a model?" And model theory (or if you want, interpretation theory) is Mathematically well formalise
265.
by ukj 6y ago
It's just an all-encompassing word that's not subject to testability/falsification. Some people say the universe is physical. Other people say the universe is material. Other people yet say it's neither of those two. Nob
266.
by ukj 6y ago
I mean, sure. If you believe scale invariance holds.
267.
by ukj 6y ago
Aaronson seems to be arriving at an understanding that is similar to what cross-compilers do in practice. By understanding other people’s interpretations you can translate between the “assembly languages” for their minds. You know what they
268.
by ukj 6y ago
2-factor authentication allows you to bias yourself towards suspecting malevolence. It's reasonably believable that they leaked their password because. Interns. And the second factor?
269.
by ukj 6y ago
2-factor authentication would've mitigated any one of the above failure points.
270.
by ukj 6y ago
It's not an XOR.

More ›