Show more

This has been performed exactly once. It is top 5 for me. He just sheds songs like scales. How many of my favourite songs are locked in his head, or dead and traceless after one analogue gig?

youtube.com/watch?v=HttPrN3v1g

Trivial addition to the list of transhumanist demands:

Highly functional food cravings. That is, nutrition intuitions which actually direct you to the exact foods you currently need.

Lots wrong with that model sometimes (plenty of early science by total cranks like Newton, for instance) but for now use it, but think of cases where the end of that pipeline is reversed: where the technology comes before the theory.

I'm told that jet engineering was like this*, but there's a bigger and scarier example: We don't really understand the brain. So all psychiatric medications are of the class 'technology used despite no one really knowing how they work'.

* tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.117

Simplistic model of theory maturity: a field moves from religion, to philosophy, to science, to technology.

e.g. weather:

went from "Zeus is angry!" to
"Weather iſ an imbalance of the humorſ of The Earth" to
"Air pressure just dropped 7 psi" to
"I am angry! Alexa, smite my neighbour with ions!"

The history of mathematics: finding out how horrendously nontrivial some tautologies are.

But ignore that for a moment: Why are insurance companies' reviews so bad, in particular?

- Null hypothesis: Because they are fed by fear and maintained by cavilling.
- Selection bias: the usual reviews kind, where only people with strong feelings bother to say anything, but also: there's a lot of ways for an insurance company to get stuff wrong and not many to get stuff right.
- Toxin magnification: insurers are atop the trophic pyramid of misfortune. They handle everyone on their worst day.

Bad brand idea: "Dark Vegan": strict harm reduction often contradicts a sentimental kind of animal rights.

e.g. maybe hunters are sort of ok, since being shot and killed instantly is an above-average death for the natural world.

Learning distinctions / labels for real distinctions can be very helpful: in this case, you'd want to grok

reference and referent,
use and mention,
quotation and disquotation,
translation and calque,
ethos, logos and pathos,
meaning as use,
writing as mere fossilised speech.

Friend going into teaching English (ESOL) asks if he should study philosophy of language first (as a practical matter).

As with most philosophy, I suspect the answer is: the first chapter helps by giving you some new concepts or distinctions or labels for those; the next helps less; and that subsequent ones hinder you with nerd-sniping, useless edge cases, and falsidical paradoxes.

Memory works through repetition - "if this comes up a lot, it's important". But most of the things we repeatedly expose ourselves to - station announcements on the PA, the same Marvel film four times a year, colleagues in rather a different league - are not important. Is this why routine is painful?

The Norse admit this kind of thing in their Æsir / Vanir distinction - but they also demonise the Giants. I don't know enough about it to say that the Jötnar are like Titans, the loser we say deserved it.

The relationship between the Titans and the Greek gods seems like the one between Serbs and Croats. Or maybe - since the gods succeeded in exterminating the Titans - it's Frenchmen and Cagots.

I've just noticed that Jeff Miller, who maintains a list of earliest known uses of various mathematical symbols, also has a list of "ambiguously defined mathematical terms at the high school level" - jeff560.tripod.com/ambiguities
Yes, of course 'whole number' is there.

The more literary a work, the less it says plainly: the fewer hints you get. That is, *puzzles* are part of the essence of literariness.

The bad reading of this is that it's all about showing off: how clever you are, how able to delay gratification (or go without it).

The good reading is, it allows reflection on what can be directly communicated, or on the difference between sentences and thoughts. Or: you get degrees of freedom to read with, if the author gives you data without a generator.

Replace the compliment "well-educated" with "well-read"; "well-read" with "knowledgeable". Each is more general than the last, but also closer to the actual objective.

It's possible to overemphasise the difference between the two. Sufficiently complex, sufficiently unknown determinisms obviously look and feel exactly like stochastic systems. Reality is messy, or, the interface between us and reality is.

Show more
Mathstodon

A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make \(\pi z^2 \times a\) jokes.

Use \( and \) for inline LaTeX, and \[ and \] for display mode.