On 1/26/24 4:18 PM, glen wrote:
You're probably more competent at parsing it than I am, which is why I said "enjoyed" rather than some other stronger description of my reaction. But when you say "plain language" and "common sense", I blanch a bit. I thought they were talking about things like actual truth, truth-following, reliability, justifiability (which I think of as "walkable", i.e. you can parse it to find where a false belief went wrong), etc. I think their "convergence" is simply saying that subjective [proba|plausi]bility provides a better platform unless those traditional values converge. But it's possible he's saying the traditional value scoring has to guide the theories toward subjective [proba|plausi]bility. Had I more energy, I'd spend the time to figure that out. Maybe you can simply tell me what it means. >8^D
/I'm just an LLM's familiar, I don't think I can help with that. /_>8^D_
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
