765400+ entries in 0.532s
mircea_popescu: it's a fiction,
this. "i
think". pray
tell, what do you
think.
greenspan_fan: but at some point it gets back
to a sort of cogito ergo sum being
the only axiom you can
trust
mircea_popescu: you perceive a distinction between
this meta-modelling and your mommy ? what would it be ?
greenspan_fan: just
that since 100% certainty is provably impossible,
there's a point at which acting according
to my understanding of
the scenario is better
then not
mircea_popescu: your process is not going
to be perfect, and
the representation
that it is makes no sense.
mircea_popescu: should you find yourself alone with a cunt
that's not properly bred according
to
the customs of your class
mircea_popescu: you excused
this untenable presumption on
the grounds
that your high expectations of yourself would otherwise paralyze you,
greenspan_fan: which might be
the "feeling" you're
talking about?
greenspan_fan: mircea_popescu yes, but I'm reasoning based on
the assumption
that my process might be perfect
greenspan_fan: thestringpuller yep, reading his book at
the moment
mircea_popescu: but
these are all of
the nature of
the x% you realise.
greenspan_fan: if I have reasons
to believe it will increase day over day by a certain percent
greenspan_fan: but if I make predictions based on similar lines of reasoning,
then
the meta-level model is
tested
mircea_popescu: so yeah,
the summa of
this
thing is
that hard rational positions melt away under examination.
greenspan_fan: I don't know whether my reasoning was correct or if other factors decided
things
greenspan_fan: insofar as I can't sample all possible histories after
the fact
mircea_popescu: you'll look back and go... well i guess
the prediction came
through. now what ?
greenspan_fan: for instance, I predict altcoin is more likely
to succeed
than other, uh, altcoins because it does
things "better"
than others and is backed by people who are credible and
talented
mircea_popescu: sure greenspan_fan you can
think whatever you wish. but
that doesn't resolve your decidability dilemma.
mircea_popescu: well why wouldn't it be ? maybe it was. maybe i can read
the future in uvulas.
thestringpuller: you made
the claim of MtGox operating on fractional reserve awhile back...
mircea_popescu: "What of it? People who don’t know MtGox won’t buy
this story as long as you provide zero evidence
to back it up,
that’s what of it."
mircea_popescu: "I’m sure a lot of people would like free icecream,
too. And free coffee, even
to
the degree of queing for an hour
to get it. And whatever else. So what of it ?"
mircea_popescu: "Any actual evidence
that
they have
this magic “unlimited selftrading account”? I’m sure a lot of people would like
to see it if it does indeed exist.."
mircea_popescu: but in any sort of scientific sense i made no prediction. people even
today object
to
this approach
mircea_popescu: and if i had, we wouldn't know if
the disclosure was complete,
greenspan_fan: wasn't
that
the basis of your predicting mt gox's failure,
though?
greenspan_fan: you made a prediction
that incompetence will lead
to failure
mircea_popescu: this doesn't change
the fact
that all
the other subgroups of
the subgroup each had
their own pipe dreams
mircea_popescu: some subgroup of
the subgroup will impose
that and in so doing it'll become history
mircea_popescu: sure, a group will be described by a power law. and in
that group a subgroup will pretend identification with
the power law's peak.
mircea_popescu: "if my calculations are correct, her knees ought
to be parting right about now"
mircea_popescu: you still don't have
that sort of privileged relationship with reality
that'd allow you
to
turn an is into a should.
greenspan_fan: yeah, but assume
that I'm not just some internet
troll who'll say anything
to win an argument
greenspan_fan: and so my reading of
TLP allows me
to make predictions, which are
tested by observing
the outcome of events
greenspan_fan: if your understanding is imperfect (which it generally is), you still need
to interact with your environment
to
test/improve it
mircea_popescu: this'd be more of
the berkely approach. who said i don't
try ?
greenspan_fan: I am not sure how you can live if you don't
try
to understand
the world around you
mircea_popescu: you mean "it's impossible
to act while maintaining
the pomp of my pretense". surely, it is.
greenspan_fan: but at some point we have
to make an approximation because otherwise it's impossible
to act
mircea_popescu: you
then proceed
to flatter yourself in supposing you can identify
the elements in
that power law
mircea_popescu: all i'm saying is
that you don't really have
the priviledged relationship
to it you readily grant yourself.
greenspan_fan: if you get me
to change my mind, I learn something new. Only upside here for me. I'm just
trying
to understand what your contentions are.
greenspan_fan: that reality only exists in
the minds of
the observers
mircea_popescu: any nonsense can meet in your head,
that doesn't matter all
that much.
greenspan_fan: But if I say "she fucked me because she loved me", and proceed
to
test
that hypothesis, do I not either increase or decrease my confidence in it?
greenspan_fan: mircea_popescu I don't really understand
that,
though. Are you saying
that human decisions are
too complicated
to analyze after
the fact?
mircea_popescu: is
the equivocation between causes and reasons. causality only exists in prospect.
mircea_popescu: right.
the foremost fallacy bred into children by a slappy introduction of
the scientific method
greenspan_fan: "I can calculate
the movements of
the stars and planets, but not
the madness of men"
greenspan_fan: wbaw but he was one corsican nobody!
that's what was spectacular about it
mircea_popescu: greenspan_fan do you understand
the difference between saying "she fucked me because she loves me" in
the morning vs saying "she will fuck me because she loves me" in
the evening ?
greenspan_fan: that's like 20 years of reshaping europe right
there
mircea_popescu: greenspan_fan you could make a list of 1k names, but
the point remains,
the king's cousin was actually placed well enough
to displace
the monarchy.
mircea_popescu: Duffer1 kinda dubious anyone other
than him actually paid it any mind.
Duffer1: define success - he successfully scammed a lot of people,
TaT didn't
mircea_popescu: philippe egalite didn't end up
the head of
the french republic. napoleon did.
mircea_popescu: max keiser was not actually able
to create an altcoin as successful as
tat's.
greenspan_fan: yet you seem
to draw
the same conclusions
that it does
greenspan_fan: the people with
the most influence are either
those w/
the most resources
themselves, or
those who can mobilize
the resources of lots of other people