There was a post (which I unfortunately couldn’t locate) that argued that rationalists should aspire to more …
Plasmon
Karma: 865
The scientific method is a cultural construct
and
I think the real fallacy is saying that the scientific method is just as good as any other method at finding truth.
Are these statements as independent as they seem? It is my impression that ”… and all cultural constructs are equally valid” is at least connotatively associated with the notion of a “cultural construct”.
The Lorentz factor diverges when the speed approaches c. Because of Length contraction and time dilation, both the distance and the time will appear to be 0, from the “point of view of the photon”.
(the photon is “in 2 places at once” only from the point of view of the photon, and it doesn’t think these places are different, after all they are in the same place! This among other things is why the notion of an observer traveling at c, rather than close to c, is problematic)
Stack overflow careers may be of use to you.
Ignore the given date/time, use this Doodle link so we can figure out when would be the optimal time within the first two weeks of December
Given that 5⁄5 of the people who filled this Doodle agree to the proposed date/time of 7 December 01PM, can we consider this settled?
The point is that they talk about it at all. Whether by intuition or by scientific method they detected that there is something they should do or cannot do.
This is not a bad thing. A chess master, for example, is fully aware that her goals (the desire to win a chess match) constrain her behaviour (her moves). This will not cause her to rebel against these constraints. She would lose if she did that, and she doesn’t want to lose.
Goals can and should constrain behaviour. Awareness of this fact, and of the resulting constraints, should not cause one to attempt to circumvent these constraints.
You don’t need a seperate word for every month. It’s much better to call them with compound words like month-4 and month-6
That is exactly how months work in Mandarin Chinese.
Would the light lose energy as it traveled upward (Does differently-shaped space redshift it)
Yes. You do lose energy moving light uphill, even if you have perfect emitters and collectors.
Is the answer the same if instead of gravity you used another force? (Say Earth was positively charged, and you converted negatively charged mass to energy, and back)
I don’t think you can do that. Photons have no electric charge.
Umm, yes ? They’re quite ubiquitous.
No, with extremely high probability.
There’s a story about anthropic reasoning being used to predict properties of the processes which produce carbon in stars, before these processes were known. (apparently there’s some debate about whether or not this actually happened)
Contrary to the popular belief that “diamonds are forever”, they are in fact thermodynamically unstable under normal conditions and transform into graphite.[13] However, due to a high activation energy barrier, the transition into graphite is so extremely slow at room temperature as to be unnoticeable.
Have a look at this blog post where, among other things, some kind of return-on-investment is calculated for learning multiplication tables further than 10x10.
Java’s reflection API could conceivably be used for this purpose. (Provided the programs are given access to each others compiled code rather than to the human-readable java source code.)
Really?
EY believes that EY deserves it with probability p, while NB believes that EY deserves it with probability q
Oh! You’re right. The OP’s q is 1-(my q), so this solution reduces to option (1) in the OP.
EY believes he deserves the money with probability p.
NB believes he deserves the money with probability q.
The following rules would, I think, be considered fair by most people:
If p=q, f(p,q) should be 1⁄2.
If p=0, f(p,q) should be 0 (EY gets nothing).
If q=0, f(p,q) should be 1 (EY gets everything).
The simplest rational function obeying these conditions is f(p,q) = p/(p+q)
Even when Satan tempted Christ, the only proferred exchange was worship in return for temporal power.
That’s because Satan knows there’s no such thing as a soul, and he is disinclined to lie.
I was taking a statement from this great-grandparent post and surrounding posts at face value
If domain experts say that the obvious ways to exploit having a tulpa fail, they are probably right.
By “do something munchkiny”, I meant these “obvious ways to exploit having a tulpa”, presumably including remembering things you don’t and other cognitive enhancements.
Why do I think they can’t? Because the (hypothetical?) domain experts say so.
There can be Bayesian evidence for non-falsifyable hypotheses. You might perhaps be interested in “Belief in the Implied Invisible ”