Search Ideas

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Implicit vs Explicit knowledge -- AI, like DNA, has the ability to create implicit knowledge.

It’s a gift, then. He increased the value you had by, let's say, replacing your bike with the same bike but new.

…as the postmoderns pointed out…

Citation needed.

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

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.

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/

‘Are all our ideas false? 🤔’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQ9lrYGObc

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.

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.

Couldn’t the mechanism introduce falsehood by other means? For example by introducing contradictions. Then it wouldn’t need a criterion of truth.

In 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.

… for absolute truth, the boundaries of meaning of your terms must be completely determined.

You seem to be using ‘absolute truth’ differently than others. Wikipedia:

Absolute truth is a statement that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares.

This is what I think Popper had in mind. Also that absolute truth leaves no room for deviation (which I think is the reason it’s “true at all times and in all places”). Nothing related to definitions or meanings. Popper wasn’t very interested in definitions.