@St_Rev @semiotechnic What I find odd is that you are willing to say "a > X > b" but also "X is a completely different thing from a & c."
-
-
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@semiotechnic Or, 'the sky is a weasel' < 'the sky is indigo' < 'the sky is blue' < 'the sky is not a weasel'.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@semiotechnic@Meaningness All of these sound like category errors to me.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@St_Rev@semiotechnic That's kind of the point, isn't it? Some uncertainty can usefully be represented numerically, some can't.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10@semiotechnic ...nevertheless 'the sky is indigo' isn't entirely false. But 'the sky is blue' is *more true*.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@Meaningness@semiotechnic These seem like fairly tractable definitional problems. Define blue as such&such wavelength distrib...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@Meaningness@semiotechnic Cyan = blue y/n8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10@Meaningness@semiotechnic ...whether a thing is true or false, we can use probabilities to reason about uncertainty2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee@simplic10@Meaningness@semiotechnic But if you can do probability theory, you already know a ton about a system.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10@Meaningness@semiotechnic true if you mean "do probability theory explicitly", not "hold it up as a normative standard"6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@tipsfromkatee @St_Rev @simplic10 @semiotechnic It’s another instance of wrong-way reduction.
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.