Search Ideas

Nevermind, this was addressed by #2462

Then what does somebody do who wants to react to an idea as a whole? Do they react to the last paragraph?

For reactions to paragraphs, at least you could tell if the content someone reacted to has changed, and only then remove the reaction.

But presumably, the same is true for reactions to ideas as a whole. Reactions would have to be removed for revisions.

There’s value in others being able to react as well. Maybe an idea affects them in some way or they want to voice support.

There’s value in reacting to top-level ideas, too.

One feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.

The word ‘therefore’ in this context means that lack of certainty is the reason error correction is the means by which knowledge is created. I’m not sure that’s the reason.

And it’s not actually clear whether ‘therefore’ refers to the part “This means that we can't be certain about anything” or to “all knowledge contains errors.”

You can avoid all of these issues by simply removing the word ‘therefore’. Simpler.

Fixed as of recently. Emails now quote the parent idea.

Please say more? Is it from the content or the grammar?

All of my criticisms notwithstanding, I actually agree with your conclusion that it may be possible in principle for life to spread into space. Like you, I see why that would be hard but not why it would be impossible.

(To anyone inclined to criticize this idea: consider criticizing #2366 instead so the criticism chain remains intact – unless there’s specifically something about my idea here as distinct from Erik’s that you want to criticize.)

Their mode of replication differs, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle. [Emphasis added.]

I share the gene’s-eye view advocated by Dawkins: changes are to be judged by how they affect the replicator’s ability to spread through the population, not by how they affect the individual organism (or “vehicle”, as you called it).

This difference matters because sometimes changes hurt an individual organism while increasing a replicator’s ability to spread. If a replicator that reduces its organism’s lifespan is better able to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals, then that’s what it will do.

Their mode of replication differs, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle.

I think the word ‘as’ is strictly speaking false here. As in: even if it were true that each genetic change must be neutral or positive, that wouldn’t be the reason genes and memes have different modes of replication.

Assuming by ‘mode’ you mean ‘mechanism’, the difference is that genes don’t need to be expressed to be replicated whereas memes do. The reason for this difference is that one person has no direct visibility into other people’s brains to copy memes ‘wholesale’ – they can only make guesses based on the behavior they see. Whereas the enzymes involved in the replication of DNA do get to direct access to the entire DNA molecule.

[E]ach new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle.

I don’t think that’s true. I remember Deutsch saying something like this but I think he’s confused about evolution.

Not every genetic change that isn’t an improvement or neutral is automatically deleterious. A replicator could go through a series of changes that temporarily reduce its ability to spread through the population until it undergoes another change that raises that ability above the original level.

To reason, within any epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology.

Some epistemologies are defined too poorly to be able to tell when you’re following or straying from it.

Utility is not a necessary aspect of money.

Money without other use cases only holds value to the degree it can continuously win a Keynesian Beauty Contest in the market.

In other words, it has no underlying value.

The price of a commodity and the quantity of it in use don’t strictly correlate in the way you suggest here. 50% of gold being tied up in industry, jewellery, etc. does not mean the price floor is at 50% of the current price.

By the standard you have set here, you have implicitly disqualified Bitcoin and Zcash. If gold is not good enough because it could fall to its price floor (your claim being 50%), then Bitcoin and Zcash are even worse because they have no floor at all. It might be more precise to say the floor is zero.

Thanks. Do you think the aim in abstract fields (such as mathematics) is correspondence as well? (As Deutsch seems to argue with the idea of perfect propositions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs).

…you only think we need it to explain progress in science.

No, I think progress in science is explained by error correction. The aim of science is correspondence. There’s a difference between aims and means.

Are you asking if there can be correspondence between two abstractions? Or between a physical object and an abstraction?

Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (per chatgpt).

ChatGPT is notoriously unreliable and known for making stuff up. I recommend using a different, human-made source. Should be easy to find one using your search engine of choice.

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.

It looks like you were trying to quote the parent idea. Be sure to use either quotation marks or, for blockquotes, start each paragraph with a > sign. That’s the markdown way to specify a blockquote so it gets the red border on the left.

For example, if you type:

1

> this will appear as a blockquote

…it will turn into:

this will appear as a blockquote

Check the preview to correct errors as you draft a reply.

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.

Bitcoin and Zcash have no utility beyond their transferability. The only way either would ever be money is if a government made it their legal tender, forcing transactions to be done with it exclusively.

To use US Dollar as an example again, the only reason it is money is that it has the alternative utility function of being the only thing the government will accept for tax payments. In that sense it is the only currency that keeps you out jail if you use it in its designated geographical area (!). If that weren’t the case then people would quickly swap to using something else—something that isn’t being manipulated by the government.

(To prevent any confusion, please understand that I believe governments should be completely agnostic to how people carry out their transactions, including allowing them to use any currency and even old-school barter if they wish.)

TL;DR The only way for the US Dollar, or Bitcoin, or Zcash (or any other unbacked currencies) to be useful as money is if a government makes them legal tender, and prohibits anything else being used in transactions.

You misunderstood my criticism. I said the US Federal Reserve Notes used to be backed by gold, not that the gold itself was backed by something.