Joseph Weissman

Don’t formulae like the laws of motion produce infinitely-many real-valued positions depending on their arguments…?

Thanks 🙏

unfreeze me

^^ haven't really dug in yet but looks very fun -- at least for certain, perhaps idiosyncratic, values of "fun" :)

amazon.com/Philosophy-Model-Theory-Tim-Button/dp/0198790406

“Simulated” philosophy SE questions (made with Markov chains)

se-simulator.lw1.at/s/philosophy.stackexchange.com

really the message should be for high-rep users/role models -- we have to set the tone and keep chattiness out of comments (and hints/partial answers should go in Answers)

historical comments though seem like invaluable meta-information -- where people are asking about context and motivation of questions, and this doesn't (always) get promoted back into q's

> Comment.delete_all

i've definitely written answers here that are comment-like, or just tiny lists of quick points/arrows for further investigation... and this is (sometimes) genuinely helpful

(as long as you say "this is partial" people tend to be okay with it, as long as it isn't actively wrong/harmful/etc)

maybe this would be a good meta post, talking about the "intended" SE usage of comments and why it's so much better to write even a partial answer

they're used so badly on this site (and the highest-rep users are guilty of it, and so am i)

@JonEricson sometimes I feel like declaring comment bankruptcy

Anyway very fun — more q’s like this please

A kind of “quantic” approach to foundational maths, generically not-deciding between wave and corpuscle, between categorical Universes of value and set-theoretical analytical universes of “reference” (maybe a link to semiotics...)

kind of naive maybe but it struck me as asking about a superposition of analysis and “structuralism” (categorical synthesis...)

Such a cool q

@MoziburUllah this popped back onto the main page recently...

there has to be some baseline agreement as to what's actually going on

it's all polling and atmospherics, "who is this good for" kind of analysis -- which is fine but you need to focus more on actual policy and whitepapers etc

the media encourages this really distanced perspective, where first-order claims can't really be evaluated

there's not as much policy content, and so much of the analysis is predicated on the idea that everyone is a pundit

i read the news compulsively, i should probably let some of it go

the media is the message

of course :)

So jaded, @MoziburUllah :)

@stoicfury good to see you around these parts again :)

@MoziburUllah ^^

yes, artificial general intelligence

in a curious way, AGI might appear to answer to a lot of nietzsche's criteria for the future of philosophy -- the dawn of a new mode of creative intelligence; even a kind of "species-child" of humanity (and so a sort of symbolic overcoming of the human...)

this seems to be an online version of the Hundred Thousand Billion Poems -- x42.com/active/queneau.html?l=en&n=New+Poem

(deleuze has an essay on him somewhere...)

that's alfred jarry i think :)

(or just plain old CS rather)

It’s not really philosophy I think but generally speaking — no, a philosophical stance is not disproven by a particular adherent acting contrary to it

Just to back this up a bit — it definitely makes sense to understand coding as a writing job, which means you are also paid in time for intangible creative process things. Note that there may also be useful engineering deliverables that may feel “immaterial” to certain management styles — it may seem acceptable eg to ship without documentation or unit tests but at some point the lack of attention to nonfunctional things can bite back. Learning to manage work life balance can take time to master for creative professionals — and also developing discipline and craftsmanship takes real effort…

What if concepts are not reducible to propositions at all...? There seem to be a lot of assumptions here that could be spelled out more carefully?

Maybe closer to something for Worldbuilding SE?

It would/might help here to be a lot more explicit about what you’re after in an answer; what does a great answer to this question look like? What exactly would the “right” answer explain correctly? (It is important structurally for SE that questions have a ‘true’ answer, and that there be no mystery: you have to spell out exactly the features of the theoretical construction you are analyzing, and which step you need specific help with footing, etc...)