@The_Lagrangian Yes… ?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness what I'm saying is GW hidden variable in world model cashes out to direct experience, and so should be consistent w positivism1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian Yeah, I don’t know the details of how people worked that through.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@The_Lagrangian The project collapsed a century ago, for reasons that are clear in retrospect, so I’ve never learned the details.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I see people say this all the time but get confused b/c "models need to relate to experience" seems unassailable1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@Meaningness but they must have been talking about something much narrower1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian Well, their question was, given a set of sense data, what can we deduce using logical operations?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@The_Lagrangian The answer turned out to be “nothing,” for lots of reasons.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@The_Lagrangian But one thing they were trying to do was to get rid of spooks, so they were reluctant to posit entities w/o strong reason1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness just like the behaviorists, who mistook Occam's Razor for "it is impossible for things to have internal state"2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
@The_Lagrangian Eh… I’m not really knowledgeable enough to say but I don’t think they had the machinery to make that sophisticated a mistake
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.