Yeah, I tend to agree. The default position is "no such thing" and the burden is on those making a positive claim. I feel that way about actual infinity, moral intuitionism, natural law, etc. as well. Appeals to common sense and pragmatism are the most suspect, but often the most useful.
On 4/8/21 8:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > It could also be chaotic, or, like a conjugate gradient optimization working > in high dimensionality and finite precision, apt to stumble across new > subspaces by accident, even though it is just being greedy. The apparent > randomness just comes from evaluating a function against large input vectors > that have both known and (mostly) unknown values. How one could possibly > tease out subtle symmetry breaking roles in such a cacophony is unclear to > me. That cacophony could give the appearance of freedom, which makes me > suspicious. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
