The new proposed terminology doesn’t seem like a 1:1 mapping from Joe’s dichotomy to me—when reading Joe’s writing, it felt like a linear probe into multi-dimensional concept space, while the distinction here sounds like mode collapse 🤔
I cannot use a thermometer to measure the “temperature” of non-equilibrium plasma during super-alfvenic slipping reconnection, even though the ions have some “average speed” inside solar flares—even when everyone would agree about what “really happens” near the Sun about each individual particle, some parts of the bickering about the definitions of what is “thermal” vs “magnetic” could be considered “real thinking” and other parts “fake thinking” based on the usefulness for making predicitions with approximate models, there is no hope to run the physics models on the level of Shroediner equation any time soon and general relativity is continuos theory, so not even computable without approximations.
Fearing sounds of burglars have nothing to do with pressure waves and everything to do with losing money or life—both of which are social reality constructs, not “physical.”
Whether or not I shall be forgiven for bluntness, the concept of “physical world” sounds to me like an example of “fake thinking”—as if we wanted to throw away a century of post-modernism instead of learning from it, as if we wanted to regress into less nuance instead of more nuance...
What I find useful about this perspective is that it does point to something about stuff “in the environment” that is opposed to “useless internal thinking loops” when I imagine it applied to thinking about embeded agents—I just don’t see the terminology of “physical world” or “objective reality” as new steppings stones towards better understanding—IMHO those steppings stones gave us all the low hanging fruits already in game theory—who even cares about “physical,” there is nothing “physical” about the mind, only about the brain and there is no theory of how the mind rises from the brain yet, so 🤷 in that sense, all thinking is “fictional,” but some of it is more “useful” and the words “fake vs real” seem better approximation for that intuition compared to “fictional vs real.”
Example of a referent for “works on my computer”—shared understanding of a joke about software, when the same code is run in different environments and a bug in the system that contains the code is reproducible only in deployment environments and not on a developer’s local machine.
The new proposed terminology doesn’t seem like a 1:1 mapping from Joe’s dichotomy to me—when reading Joe’s writing, it felt like a linear probe into multi-dimensional concept space, while the distinction here sounds like mode collapse 🤔
I cannot use a thermometer to measure the “temperature” of non-equilibrium plasma during super-alfvenic slipping reconnection, even though the ions have some “average speed” inside solar flares—even when everyone would agree about what “really happens” near the Sun about each individual particle, some parts of the bickering about the definitions of what is “thermal” vs “magnetic” could be considered “real thinking” and other parts “fake thinking” based on the usefulness for making predicitions with approximate models, there is no hope to run the physics models on the level of Shroediner equation any time soon and general relativity is continuos theory, so not even computable without approximations.
Fearing sounds of burglars have nothing to do with pressure waves and everything to do with losing money or life—both of which are social reality constructs, not “physical.”
Whether or not I shall be forgiven for bluntness, the concept of “physical world” sounds to me like an example of “fake thinking”—as if we wanted to throw away a century of post-modernism instead of learning from it, as if we wanted to regress into less nuance instead of more nuance...
What I find useful about this perspective is that it does point to something about stuff “in the environment” that is opposed to “useless internal thinking loops” when I imagine it applied to thinking about embeded agents—I just don’t see the terminology of “physical world” or “objective reality” as new steppings stones towards better understanding—IMHO those steppings stones gave us all the low hanging fruits already in game theory—who even cares about “physical,” there is nothing “physical” about the mind, only about the brain and there is no theory of how the mind rises from the brain yet, so 🤷 in that sense, all thinking is “fictional,” but some of it is more “useful” and the words “fake vs real” seem better approximation for that intuition compared to “fictional vs real.”
Example of a referent for “works on my computer”—shared understanding of a joke about software, when the same code is run in different environments and a bug in the system that contains the code is reproducible only in deployment environments and not on a developer’s local machine.