Search Ideas
491 ideas match your query.:
it’s an excellent approximation
It's an excellent approximation to what? Reality? How do we know that?
This is addressed in section 5 of Dennis' paper: The Structure of Rational Thought.
‘How can we rationally proceed when all known ideas have pending criticisms?’
By treating ideas as immutable and discrete, even if content overlaps. For example, as a description of reality, general relativity has pending criticisms. But there are no serious contenders. Instead, take the idea: ‘Although GR has pending criticisms as a true description of reality, it’s an excellent approximation, makes precise predictions, and powers technology such as GPS. So we keep using it until we find a replacement.’ As written, this idea has no pending criticisms, so its advocacy is rational.
By this criterion, it is irrational to adopt or advocate either GR or QM, as they have pending criticisms.
According to every physicist I have heard speak on the matter, GR and QM conflict.
@bart-vanderhaegen has also said to me that GR falsely predicts the orbit of electrons, and QM falsely predicts the mass threshold at which black holes form.
By this criterion, it is irrational to adopt or advocate either GR or QM, as they have pending criticisms.
From #1497, emphasis mine:
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
This is what I was going off. Did I misunderstand #1497?
They are separate ideas, and the latter ideas depend on their formers. If there is a flaw in former ideas, they apply to latter ideas, but if there is a flaw in latter ideas, they don’t necessarily apply to the former. So arranging them like this was intentional, to respect that hierarchy.
They are seperate ideas, and the latter ideas depend on the former. If there is a flaw in former ideas, they apply to latter ideas, but if there is a flaw in latter ideas, they don’t necessarily apply to the former. So arranging them like this was intentional, to respect that hierarchy.
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.
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.
The more HTV an explanation is, the more closely it corresponds to reality.
A surviving the criticism does not show that A is progress over B. We could reject one error while moving even further from reality.
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.
When we reject explanation B in favour of explanation A, there must be some property of the explanations that comprehensively distinguishes A as better than B.
https://youtu.be/boWSKR7OrUw?t=627&si=V4UOiSZym6i0ZhjO
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.
Diet isn't ruled out just by comparing a large dinner with an empty stomach before bed.
You've said that you often put off eating and struggle to eat as much as you intend to. If you're regularly under-eating or going long stretches without food, that may be keeping adrenaline and cortisol elevated into the evening, making it harder to wind down, fall asleep and stay asleep.
That could also explain why you're physically tired but still mentally alert and able to keep working at night.
Did you mean "Any given set of knowledge cannot grow itself inferentially"?
I think it is a mistake to say or imply that variation and selection IS conjecture and criticism. At best C&C is the subset of V&S that occurs in minds. The biosphere doesn’t actually conjecture anything.
(Steel-manning the common sense view)
We assign implicit probabilities as an expression of our current state of knowledge.
"In the summer desert it will probably be sunny this afternoon" tends to come from some who has no reason to think it won't be sunny, but maybe hasn't investigated it enough to be confident. It roughly translates to "everything I know points to it being sunny this afternoon, but I don't have a grasp of all the factors involved, so I am allowing myself the slim possibility (lol) that I will be surprised".