The comprehensively correct truth is just the global optimum of the modeling function. Without aiming for it, your modeling is bound to go wrong.
-
-
This is a good trajectory to be on, but it fails socially if you start to believe you definitely really have the correct truth
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Where by fails I mean it forces either conversion or conflict
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you understand the truth of a matter and others are strongly incentivized to not accept it, why does it logically follow that you need to convince them or be in conflict?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The intuition that truth needs to be universally shared is a faulty bias that is very common among smart nerds but very uncommon among smart normies.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
If it’s not universally shared is it true ?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of course; you just need to share it with the platonic form of the truthful mind, not with the minds of the domesticated monkeys that are existentially and morally bound to the ideology of their tribes
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It’s good to seem out better models for reality but it seems to me like you’re mistaking the model for reality itself. Truth doesn’t really exist in this way
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Something exists, and it exists in a particular way. The behavior of your models is isomorphic to systems that give rise to your observables or they are not.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
This is relatively true for a given use case, rather than an absolute ultimate platonic truth
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The absolute ultimate platonic truth is just eternal Mr Automaton (the one that old Mrs Universe is being born from). It is not particularly useful for almost anything.
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.