OK, this is great—that’s exactly what I’m calling “meta-rational judgement”! My thesis is that you always need to do that when applying rational methods, and there’s skillsets for doing that, and those tend to be neglected, and it would be good to help people learn them.
I don’t think any of these are “approximations of DT” in any interesting sense. If you declare by fiat that DT is the Theory of Everything, then you could try to force-fit it… but that’s going to come out awkward and unconvincing.
-
-
If you don't see DT's laws as governing these cases, or if you think it's a critique of the use of DT that some option space is too large to be practically approximated; then I have the sense of pointing to a thing and a use that's still not in your ontology.
-
This is like saying "When building a car engine, use the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, thermodynamics may not tell you the tensile strength of steel". It's a type error. Like thermodynamics, DT holds true everywhere, whether or not it's useful to think about it right now.
- 8 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.