On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > >In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's > > >subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from > > >normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In > > >short, the reality you inhabit will increasingly become "magical", > > >like a white rabbit or Harry Potter universe. > > > > Or like Max Tegmark surviving every suicide attempt with his quantum > machine gun. > > > > Not unlike that indeed, except that committing suicide may not even be > necessary. >
actually nothing to do with what you say here, but by confession due to me being too lazy to actually root back to a more appropriate post in the "tronnies" thankfully much shorter and more thread-concentrate-to-singular than the lovely edgar (where are you edgar?). If John Clarke is the star of the thread (for supply a knock down falsification plus identifying the prediction for Mr. Ross and the rest of us, where we'd all been blinded by the 101 non-predictions supplied by him, to think there were none at all) and Liz is the most courageous (for at possibly the low point of Mr. Ross's prestige in this thread, suddenly announcing - having read some of his book - that his idea was elegant and maybe crazy enough to be right). If those, then I would say you have been the Fairest and most respectful to the guy, in that you've offered your knowledge same presumably you would a peer, and tried to make it simplest and most useful to him. The guy, love him, failed all you, of course. Which the group as a whole has been pretty good about...no one turning the knife as it were....instead all demurring into this thread-evening banter of pipe smoking good natured philosophical wonderingness. All good. I'm doing this too, in that my focus is very much on the fact he failed all of you despite the obvious time and large amount of knowledge offered by all, but particularly you three. I'm addressing you, because mine is more relevant to your trait in this thread of 'knowledge + fairness'. so my philosophical smoke rings from the pipe of wondering would be: would it have been even fairer....and possibly even essential for scientific progress....to actually nail Ross's inadequecies - whether psychological or in knowledge - as a definite milestone fairly early on, and then turn to the intermediate problem - of a methodological nature I should think - of 'controlling' for the gaps or short-falls (methodological as in 'how to control') after-which return to his ideas from scratch, adding in or correcting for his shortcomings, and THEN looking for what if anything, of value, may be there? I only mention this, because it could be we are at a juncture in history where it is particularly likely important insights will come from 'beyond the periphery'... ...in which case we should have to recognize this is not going to be so easy as the peripheral/outsider contributors in history...because it was simpler back then, and a lot more complex now. such that, maybe if knowledge is to 'get it' when that genius from the outsider comes forward, if he is there, some degree of 'controlling' will be crucial lest it will be missed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
