But in most situations, probability theory doesn’t work well, because reality isn’t like that. For one thing, there are no utilons in physics, so there is no objectively correct definition of distance.
Writing this tweet, I have an unbounded number of possible things to say; an inconceivable set of possible outcomes; no clearly-defined goals; and any numerical probabilites would be meaningless. Do you know about aardvark cucumbers?
-
-
That is, an epistemic, not ontological problem. One can hold that 1)DT is the best way of deciding, objectively 2)DT cannot be applied in its textbook form, just approximated As GA Cohen said, just because one cannot reach some tasty grapes doesn't mean they are less tasty
-
Aardvark cucumbers are the only thing aardvarks eat other than ants and termites. Their fruits grow underground. Aardvarks are the only creature that eats them, so they depend absolutely on aardvarks for seed dispersal. (I am not making any of this up!)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I happen not to know about such a species of cucumbers! But that is saying that one cannot apply DT to the real world, because one doesn't know enough. The set of things you can say is finite, 280 chars has only so many permutations. (even accounting for multiple meanings)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.