If you learn to learn based on fun most of your actual learning will be less successful.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
If you spend your whole life actively exploring and learning about the things that truly interest you, learning will be fun and successful. I find learning to be inherently pleasant. I see your point only if when you are required to learn uninteresting things.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rhyolight
Most relevant things that we have to learn in real life, like how to do taxes, brush shoes, write a glossary to a PhD thesis, clean a clogged pipe, deploy a Python app on MacOS, change diapers, solve integrals, review bad conference papers are neither fun nor interesting.
5 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @rhyolight
Carlos De la Guardia Retweeted David Deutsch
Carlos De la Guardia added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How does this apply to doing my taxes? It’s not fun. Should I just not do it until it seems fun?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Cancer’s no fun either. Both problems are soluble, but unsolved. There’s no limit to how much of our lives can be spent on things we enjoy. Compared to our ancestors, we already spend little of our time on ‘necessary’ evils like subsistence farming.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don’t disagree that there is some possible world in which I have a great time all of the time. But not most of them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Indeed, good things are hard to vary. Most variants are worse. But, our present and future situations depend on creativity, not chance, so we can hope to replace bad things with better ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
If all the relevant variance of all the possible events actually exist, then in what sense is my identity as an arbitrary one of them not chance?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
First, following
@DavidDeutschOxf, not all possible things happen. And, among the things that do happen across the multiverse, some happen more than others (some histories have a larger measure).1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Btw I think that the reason why there is something rather than nothing may be that existence is the default. If you enumerate all universe state permutations, some can be interpreted as predecessors of other states. The set of possible universe is the set of resulting world lines
-
-
I believe that's what Julian Barbour argues (he cites Wheeler-DeWitt's equation for ex)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.