The onlooker would have interpreted it as a faux pas if you had told him that you had designed the set-up that way on purpose, for the castle to keep being smoothed-over by the waves. He didn’t mean to help you, so if you responded that everything’s just fine, he would have taken that as a slight-that-he-can’t-reveal-he-took, thus faux pas.
Ah. “You are wrong” is a social attack. “You are going to fail” is a social attack. Responding to it with “that is perfectly fine” is the faux pas.
Or rather, in this case it is meant as a social attack on you, rather than cooperating you on adversarially testing the sandcastle (which is not you, and “the sandcastle” being wrong does not mean “you” are wrong).
Thanks, I think I got your meaning.
That’s right. I consider it immoral to believe p(doom) > 0. It’s even worse to say it and that you believe it.
I would say that the question of being able to put a probability on future events is… not as meaningful as you might think.
But yes, I believe all decisions are Löbian self-fulfilling prophecies that work by overriding the outputs of your predictive system. By committing to make the outcome you want happen, even if your predictive system completely and unambigiously predicts it won’t happen. (that is the reason that being able to put a probability on future events is not as meaningful as you might think).
You still need to understand very clearly, though, how your plan (“the sandcastle”) will fail, again and again, if you actually intend to accomplish the outcome you want. You are committing to the final output/impact of your program, not to any specific plan, perspective, belief, paradigm, etc etc.
I’m not sure I have the capacity to understand all the technical details of your work (I might), but I am very certain you are looking in the correct direction. Thank you. I have updated on your words.
Ah. “You are wrong” is a social attack. “You are going to fail” is a social attack. Responding to it with “that is perfectly fine” is the faux pas.
Or rather, in this case it is meant as a social attack on you, rather than cooperating you on adversarially testing the sandcastle (which is not you, and “the sandcastle” being wrong does not mean “you” are wrong).
Thanks, I think I got your meaning.
I would say that the question of being able to put a probability on future events is… not as meaningful as you might think.
But yes, I believe all decisions are Löbian self-fulfilling prophecies that work by overriding the outputs of your predictive system. By committing to make the outcome you want happen, even if your predictive system completely and unambigiously predicts it won’t happen.
(that is the reason that being able to put a probability on future events is not as meaningful as you might think).
You still need to understand very clearly, though, how your plan (“the sandcastle”) will fail, again and again, if you actually intend to accomplish the outcome you want. You are committing to the final output/impact of your program, not to any specific plan, perspective, belief, paradigm, etc etc.
I’m not sure I have the capacity to understand all the technical details of your work (I might), but I am very certain you are looking in the correct direction. Thank you. I have updated on your words.