I take it that by “DT is true everywhere” you mean it is the correct analysis of all physical events (of a certain type, maybe), rather than just that it is a consistent branch of math. I don’t think that’s true.
It seems to me that you don't understand the very abstract use that is being made of decision theory. It's not a recipe or an algorithm. It's a generalization relating coherent or incoherent behavior to performance, making far more minimal assumptions than you seem to think.
-
-
Well… I *think* I understand this; but I may be wrong! We clearly have very different cognitive styles, which makes it difficult for us to understand each other.
-
Returning to your Facebook post, I take it that it is an attempt to characterize the difference (Law vs Toolbox). I don’t think that is accurate; I think I understand and use both of those ways of thinking. But, I can’t be sure. And I don’t have a good alternative model!
-
Btw that you think you use both styles possibly suggests that you are a toolbox thinker, according to the original argument. (The argument might be wrong, but that is a separate point.)
-
I think I'm a toolbox thinker because I've always been rebelling against rules set by authorities since I was very young. The mode of thinking might be determined by genetics and childhood experiences. My whole philosophy of innovation is based around breaking universalist rules.
-
This discussion has left the level of submitting to outside authority of thought about 400 years ago (and corresponds to going to Kegan 4). They are not talking about human authority, but whether there is a mathematical law of correct thinking one must submit to once one finds it
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.