Search Ideas

Yeah I could see some knowledge in genes corresponding to certain facts about reality, like knowledge about flight corresponding to facts about certain laws of physics.

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let our theories die in our place", we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondance, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

… "let ideas die in their place" …

Popper said we can let our theories die in our place.

Careful with quotation marks. Either match the source (and cite it) or properly indicate modifications – or don’t use quotation marks.

https://quote-checker.com/pages/rationale

Would you say there's correspondence for some knowledge in genes as well?

If America is an option (you mention Austin), the non-coastal Western US could work.

A lot of those states get good water from the Sierra Nevada or the Rocky Mountains.

Those states have either no or low state income tax and largely leave residents alone. (For example, the difference between CA and NV during Covid was night and day.)

Southern NV gets a lot of sun throughout the year. NV has no state income tax.

I’ve heard good things about the area surrounding Las Vegas, though I haven’t been myself.

New Mexico could be good for high altitude (I think).

Switzerland near the Italian border might work.

I think Lucas is right to reject that fragmentation but I don’t think it happens in the first place.

CR universally describes the growth of knowledge as error correction. When such error correction leads to correspondence with the facts (about the physical world), we call that science. When it doesn’t, we call it something else, like art or engineering or skill-building.

It’s all still error correction. There is no fragmentation due to correspondence.

It sounds like the core disagreement is around Lucas’s idea that the concept of correspondence fragments the growth of knowledge: if correspondence is the aim of science but not of other fields, then that means the growth of knowledge works differently in science than in other fields.

👍

:thumbsup:

:+1:

#2325 serves as an example. I had submitted a criticism which is now outdated and remains counter-criticized. It’s actually better that way because it shows that an error has been corrected, and makes it less likely for others to submit a duplicate criticism.

In your revision, you asked me to let you know if you are doing things incorrectly.

You can revise ideas the way you did, it’s not wrong per se, but revisions are better for incremental changes. They’re not really meant for taking back criticisms or indicating agreement. If a criticism of yours is successfully counter-criticized and you would like to abandon it, I would just leave it counter-criticized and not revise it further.

If you are looking for a way to indicate agreement (with a counter-criticism, say), it’s something Dirk and I have been discussing offline, see #2169. I hope to implement something to that effect soon.

I’m happy to have you and for your contributions, but I have to ask: do you see yourself building a Veritula competitor at some point in the future?

Erik has since fixed this typo.

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let ideas die in their place", we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondance, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. The reason most people don’t (permanently) run out memory (of either kind) isn’t that memory isn’t scarce, but that there’s a pruning mechanism in the mind. And there’s competition.

Thanks for clarifying

Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.

Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and/or has more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.

This may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.

Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.