Search Ideas
2797 ideas match your query.:
There’s a risk in posting follow-up thoughts as nested comments. The risk is that criticism chains won’t bubble up far enough.
If you want to add more information to an idea, I suggest revising it.
Progress does not require a complete ranking of every live explanation. If B has a fatal flaw while no fatal flaw is currently known in A or C, the flaw in B is enough to reject B while A and C both remain live. There does not need to be one property that all three explanations possess to different degrees.
Take the same explanation in two possible realities. The explanation has the same content and the same HTV in both, but it can correspond to one reality and fail to correspond to the other. HTV alone therefore cannot determine correspondence.
An explanation can be harder to vary than a rival and still contain a fatal flaw of another kind. Unless every possible fatal flaw is itself a form of ETV, HTV cannot comprehensively determine which explanation should be rejected.
Preference formation is a computational task. (#5255) To claim we’ve understood a computational task, we must have programmed it (Deutsch). Popper never programmed it, so he didn’t understand it.
(To his credit though, he got pretty technical in defining verisimilitude, logical vs. empirical content, etc.)
Consider that preference formation is an engineering problem:
And if it is, consider also that maybe it’s worth staying away from concepts like HTV, which we have no idea how to program:
The task is to write an algorithm that takes two ideas (eg in the form of strings of characters) and returns the preferable one.
How would one go about writing that?
I think it’d be fine to start with obviously wrong answers to that question and then incrementally correct errors. For example, an algorithm that favors the idea with fewer words. (A bit like Occam’s razor.) That’d be fine as long as one wrote working code.
Pavel Tichý and David Miller independently proved in 1974 that Popper’s definition of verisimilitude leads to a contradiction. Explanation:
Let us suppose that A and B are both false, and that A’s truth content exceeds B’s. Let a be a true sentence entailed by A but not by B. Let f be any falsehood entailed by A. Since A entails both a and f the conjunction, a&f is a falsehood entailed by A, and so part of A’s falsity content. If a&f were also part of B’s falsity content B would entail both a and f. But then it would entail a contrary to the assumption. Hence a&f is in A’s falsity content and not in B’s. So A’s truth content cannot exceeds B’s without A’s falsity content also exceeding B’s.
Suppose now that B’s falsity content exceeds A’s. Let g be some falsehood entailed by B but not by A, and let f, as before, be some falsehood entailed by A. The sentence f→g is a truth, and since it is entailed by g, is in B’s truth content. If it were also in A’s then both f and f→g would be consequences of A and hence so would g, contrary to the assumption. Thus A’s truth content lacks a sentence, f→g, which is in B’s. So B’s falsity content cannot exceeds A’s without B’s truth content also exceeding A’s. The relationship depicted in Diagram 4 simply cannot obtain: in this sense, that picture is an “impossible” one, like those in Escher’s famous drawings.
The idea ‘I’m located in a hemisphere’ is ‘easy to vary’ as to which hemisphere but it’s true, meaning it corresponds to reality.
HTV and correspondence are orthogonal.
Explanation A surviving criticism does not establish that explanation A is objective progress over explanation B. But the claim that one fatal flaw in explanation B is enough to reject explanation B does not depend on explanation A being objective progress. Rejecting explanation B and establishing explanation A as objective progress are separate claims.
One fatal flaw in B is enough to reject B. A does not also need to possess some opposite property that makes it the winner.
From 10:27 onwards, this video goes over a variety of diet related elements that affect sleep. Might be useful.
Something simple you could try is heavily dimming your computer and other devices and using strong red filters for the last few hours before bed.
Not just the standard night shift features, which are often far too weak. I mean making the screen properly red so that almost all of the blue and green light is removed.
You might be surprised by how dim you can make your devices while still being able to use them fine. You just need to give your eyes a minute to adjust. I routinely have my iPhone and MacBook on their dimmest settings.
Dimming or reddening the room lighting could help too. (Following up on #5243.)
This doesn't rule out blue light from other sources disturbing your ability to wind down and fall asleep.
Becoming progressively less tired is compatible with physiological causes, such as those I mention in #5241.
That said I still think you should go see a sleep doctor, Tyler.
Found this article illuminating (emphasis mine):
The gradual loss of energy during the day produces a drive to sleep in order to restore that energy. This is known as the homeostatic sleep drive. If the homeostatic process were the only one involved, a person would wake up fully energized and then gradually wind down over the course of the day, like a battery losing power. This would mean an uneven level of alertness during the day, with dangerously low alertness in the afternoon and evening. To counterbalance this, the SCN also regulates alertness by what is known as the circadian process. As the day goes on, and energy winds down, the SCN compensates for this by sending a stronger alertness signal to the brain and body. This alertness signal reaches a peak in the two hours just before bedtime. This zone of maximum alertness is known as the “forbidden zone for sleep” since the alertness signal makes sleep nearly impossible during that zone. When the usual bedtime is reached, the SCN begins to turn down its alertness signal to allow the body to sleep.
The article is on “Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”. I’m obviously no doctor so don’t take anything I say as advice or diagnosis. But from what you’ve said, I wonder if you have that. I think I have the same issue.
The article goes into several causes you could look into. For example, it says exposure to blue light in the morning can help reset one’s internal clock. But that requires a special type of cell on the retina. If those cells don’t work properly, then as far as your internal clock is concerned, you’re effectively blind.
Have you traveled internationally? I’m thinking specifically of flying west for a large distance.
For example, if I fly to the West coast from central Europe and I land at 12pm say. That’s 9 hours behind Europe. And then I try to stay up until 10pm or so. That’s nearly impossible. I’ve fallen asleep with the lights on.
Would be interesting if you still lay awake for an hour or so even when severely jet lagged.
Something I made the other day, recipe in the caption :) https://www.instagram.com/p/Db2DzFplBXq/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Could you do meal prep for the week? Have meals ready in the freezer so you don’t need to cook every day.
The cause of procrastination is a conflict between preferences. Part of you wants to take out the trash, another doesn’t. The solution is a common preference: a new option both parts of you prefer to their respective initial position.
Can you identify those parts within you?
Try brainstorming many new options on V. With any luck, you’ll find a new option both parts of you want without delay.