Activity Feed
#4919·Ed Matthews revised about 16 hours agoIf you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.
It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.
I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.
Hi Ed, welcome to Veritula. If this idea is meant as a criticism (it sounds like one), be sure to revise it and check the criticism checkbox. See also ‘How Does Veritula Work?’
#4919·Ed Matthews revised about 16 hours agoIf you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.
It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.
I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.
Risk adversity is widespread enough that restrictive terms may be implicit.
If you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.
It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.
I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.
Risk adversity is widespread enough that the contract is implicit.
If you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.
It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.
I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.
#2017·Amaro Koberle, 7 months agoI don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.
If you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.
It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.
I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.
Risk adversity is widespread enough that the contract is implicit.
A contradiction in The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch? 🤔
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xmngAmZMEuo
Steve Jobs was a good writer.
He wrote clearly and simply.
Anyone can understand him.
From https://x.com/WebDesignMuseum/status/2049544240213196807
#4914·Rob Rosenbaum, 1 day agoIn that case, I'm unclear what "100% true" means. If your definitions have wiggle room, then the truth is not your idea. The truth is within the bounds of your idea, but it is not identical to your idea.
In that case, I'm unclear what "100% true" means.
Perfect correspondence with the facts.
For example, if it’s currently raining, and you say it is, then your statement is 100% true.
#4906·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoI think you misunderstand both my own argument and the meaning of ambiguity.
You’re saying that, to hold a true idea in the sense of absolute truth in my head, I’d have to have perfect definitions, which require infinite amounts of information, and having all that information is impossible. Right?
While you obviously know what those words mean, you do not have absolute, 100% defined boundaries of what they refer to and what they don't.
I think it’s enough to know what the words mean for the idea to be true. We don’t have to have “100% defined boundaries”.
Truth means correspondence with the facts (Tarski). Not infinite precision.
I think a ‘trick’ cynics use (not maliciously, still I like to call it a trick) is to set an unrealistically high standard for truth. And then, when no idea ends up being able to meet that standard, they say the idea can’t be true.
In that case, I'm unclear what "100% true" means. If your definitions have wiggle room, then the truth is not your idea. The truth is within the bounds of your idea, but it is not identical to your idea.
#4912·Patrick O'Loughlin, 1 day agoCool - maybe that is better. I think that inexplicit knowledge is underrated in the David Duetsch circles, what do you think? ... there, I used it in a sentence, now I'll remember it!
Nice, yes. I do see Deutschians using the concept, especially in the context of the fun criterion. But in the general public inexplicit knowledge is underrated, I agree.
#4910·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoNot to be a stickler but I think you mean ‘inexplicit’.
Implicit = not said directly but implied. Can still accompany explicit speech though.
Inexplicit = not expressed in words or symbols.At least that’s how I use the terms.
Cool - maybe that is better. I think that inexplicit knowledge is underrated in the David Duetsch circles, what do you think? ... there, I used it in a sentence, now I'll remember it!
#4908·Fabio Guerreiro, 3 days agoIt’s a gift, then. He increased the value you had by, let's say, replacing your bike with the same bike but new.
Value isn’t in the object itself. It’s in the owner’s mind. If the owner doesn’t consent to the replacement, the value may well be lower.
For example, imagine somebody replacing your teddy bear from childhood with the ‘same’ one but new.
#4909·Patrick O'Loughlin, 3 days agoImplicit vs Explicit knowledge -- AI, like DNA, has the ability to create implicit knowledge.
Not to be a stickler but I think you mean ‘inexplicit’.
Implicit = not said directly but implied. Can still accompany explicit speech though.
Inexplicit = not expressed in words or symbols.
At least that’s how I use the terms.
#4683·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoAIs have created output that is not only novel, but seems to constitute new knowledge (resilient information), such as the famous Move 37 from AlphaGo. That is new knowledge because the move was not present in the training data explicitly, nor did the designers construct it.
Implicit vs Explicit knowledge -- AI, like DNA, has the ability to create implicit knowledge.
#1426·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoYeah. And if he takes it against your will and replaces it with a brand new bike it’s still theft.
It’s a gift, then. He increased the value you had by, let's say, replacing your bike with the same bike but new.
#4892·Rob Rosenbaum, 4 days agoI think you run into the problem of definitions. An idea cannot be absolute, perfect truth without total, perfect, complete definitions for its terms. This isn't required for knowledge - the terms can be rough because the ideas are tentative. But for absolute truth, the boundaries of meaning of your terms must be completely determined. But, as the postmoderns pointed out, this requires infinite information - the complete determination of any one term requires its distinction from all other terms. In fact, they didn't go far enough. I'd argue you would need to know the distinction between the term and all other possible terms.
You have to know perfect definitions in order to have the idea in your head be perfectly true. Perfect definitions require infinite information, therefore you cannot know perfect truth.
…as the postmoderns pointed out…
Citation needed.
#4904·Rob Rosenbaum, 3 days agoI think you misunderstand both my own argument and the meaning of ambiguity. "I'm currently located in a hemisphere" is not ambiguous in its meaning due to not knowing which hemisphere you're in. The meaning is ambiguous to the extent that we do not have absolute knowledge of what you are, what it is to be located, or what a hemisphere is - or what "in" is. While you obviously know what those words mean, you do not have absolute, 100% defined boundaries of what they refer to and what they don't. But you would have to have that to have absolute truth.
I may be wrong in this argument, but I don't see how your counterexample refutes it.
I think you misunderstand both my own argument and the meaning of ambiguity.
You’re saying that, to hold a true idea in the sense of absolute truth in my head, I’d have to have perfect definitions, which require infinite amounts of information, and having all that information is impossible. Right?
While you obviously know what those words mean, you do not have absolute, 100% defined boundaries of what they refer to and what they don't.
I think it’s enough to know what the words mean for the idea to be true. We don’t have to have “100% defined boundaries”.
Truth means correspondence with the facts (Tarski). Not infinite precision.
I think a ‘trick’ cynics use (not maliciously, still I like to call it a trick) is to set an unrealistically high standard for truth. And then, when no idea ends up being able to meet that standard, they say the idea can’t be true.
You probably missed this in The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gTvuzxY-SXg
#4893·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoHi Rob, welcome to Veritula. It’s nice to meet another software engineer. Be sure to read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ and ‘How Do Bounties Work?’ to make the most of V.
Re: definitions, you raise an argument others have made before, namely that language has some unavoidable ambiguity or incomplete information, which necessarily introduces error. I already addressed that argument in the article linked in the discussion header:
I don’t know if I agree that natural language is always ambiguous, but even if so, I don’t see how that implies error. We can make ambiguous but true statements. ‘I’m currently located in a hemisphere’ is ambiguous as to which hemisphere, but it’s still true. We could be silly and ask, on which planet? This one. Earth. We all know what we’re talking about.
Therefore, I disagree that we need perfect definitions or infinite precision to find absolutely true ideas. (But correct me if I’m wrong to think you’re making the same argument.)
I suggest you read the article in full, otherwise you may inadvertently make more arguments that have been addressed: https://libertythroughreason.com/fallibilism-vs-cynicism/
There’s also https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/don-t-take-fallibilism-too-far.
I think you misunderstand both my own argument and the meaning of ambiguity. "I'm currently located in a hemisphere" is not ambiguous in its meaning due to not knowing which hemisphere you're in. The meaning is ambiguous to the extent that we do not have absolute knowledge of what you are, what it is to be located, or what a hemisphere is - or what "in" is. While you obviously know what those words mean, you do not have absolute, 100% defined boundaries of what they refer to and what they don't. But you would have to have that to have absolute truth.
I may be wrong in this argument, but I don't see how your counterexample refutes it.
Simplify
Rational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Rational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Follow me on Instagram for more fitness tips: https://www.instagram.com/lets.recomp/
#4900·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days ago‘Are all our ideas false? 🤔’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQ9lrYGObc
‘Are all our ideas false? 🤔’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQ9lrYGObc
Fix typo
If it introduces falsehood only fallibly, then it might fail sometimes, and the target idea would still be true after all. So no, it would need some infallible way – ie, a criterion of turth.
If it introduces falsehood only fallibly, then it might fail sometimes, and the target idea would still be true after all. So no, it would need some infallible way – ie, a criterion of truth.
#4896·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoCouldn’t the mechanism introduce falsehood by other means? For example by introducing contradictions. Then it wouldn’t need a criterion of truth.
If it introduces falsehood only fallibly, then it might fail sometimes, and the target idea would still be true after all. So no, it would need some infallible way – ie, a criterion of turth.
#4895·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoIn this related article, I write:
If we could not speak the truth, our minds would have to have some subconscious mechanism that evaluates our ideas and detects and rejects true ones, or modifies them a bit to introduce errors, before we become aware of them. Otherwise, we could still utter the truth, if only “by chance”, as Xenophanes says. Such a mechanism would itself depend on a criterion of truth. So the epistemological cynics, though inspired by Popper’s fallibilism, and even though they would call themselves ‘fallibilists’, are not actually fallibilists. Whether they realize it or not, they rely on the existence of a criterion of truth and (simultaneously, ironically) reject the possibility that some of our knowledge is true.
Couldn’t the mechanism introduce falsehood by other means? For example by introducing contradictions. Then it wouldn’t need a criterion of truth.