Search Ideas
3929 ideas match your query.:
Consider that preference formation is an engineering problem:
https://libertythroughreason.com/rationality-as-computation/
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:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
https://libertythroughreason.com/simple-refutation-of-david-deutschs-hard-to-vary/
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.
Popper says to prefer ideas that are better corroborated, more truthlike. I wrote about this recently, pasting it here:
Corroboration was meant to help us form rational preferences between ideas. From The Logic of Scientific Discovery (pp. 281-282):
We can sometimes rationally justify the preference for a theory in the light of its corroboration, that is, of the present state of the critical discussion of the competing theories, which are critically discussed and compared from the point of view of assessing their nearness to the truth (verisimilitude). The current state of this discussion may, in principle, be reported in the form of their degrees of corroboration.
Specifically, corroboration helps you form a rational preference between two theories that have both been shown to be false while there are no known alternatives. From Conjectures and Refutations (p. 318):
… even after t2 has been refuted in its turn, we can still say that it is better than t1, for although both have been shown to be false, the fact that t2 has withstood tests which t1 did not pass may be a good indication that the falsity-content of t1 exceeds that of t2 while its truth-content does not. Thus we may still give preference to t2, even after its falsification, because we have reason to think that it agrees better with the facts than did t1.
That “t2 has withstood tests which t1 did not pass” means t2 is better corroborated than t1.
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.
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.
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.
You may be overstating the difficulty. IIRC you like rural America. Finding a quiet place to live should be doable, even in cities but especially in rural places. (Believe it or not I once stayed at an Airbnb in Tahoe that was TOO quiet to sleep. It was so quiet it kinda freaked me out. And that’s saying something because I love quiet.)
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.
What’s wrong with using melatonin indefinitely?
AFAIK it creates no physical dependence, you don’t build a tolerance, and it’s cheap. What’s not to love?
Something I made the other day, recipe in the caption :) https://www.instagram.com/p/Db2DzFplBXq/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==