If you post an argument online, and the only opposition you get is braindead arguments and insults, does it confirm you were right? Or is it just self-selection of those who argue online?
Show this thread
-
Read it; there is unfortunately no argument going on, and he seems to have misread my post. Too bad.
This is a pattern I see a lot: people getting worked up about a specific headline or a specific sentence, and locking on that instead of trying to consider the underlying reasoning or the more general point
-
-
It helps if you spell out the underlying reasoning and the more general point explicitly? I don't see anything that survives the simple reply "The real universe is low-entropy in a highly structured way and No-Free-Lunch is about a structureless max-entropy distribution."
-
I mean, that's what Aaronson thought on reading your essay, and that's what
@geoffreyirving thought, and I expect it's what @chatherineols's coworkers thought. It doesn't feel to us like quibbling, it feels like a central point. If we're misunderstanding, spell it out? - Show 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.