"Live players" vs. "Dead players" (THREAD) Since reading this distinction two weeks ago, I've thought about it more or less every day. It's a simple distinction, but it explains so much.https://medium.com/@samo.burja/live-versus-dead-players-2b24f6e9eae2 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @KevinSimler
Interesting. I came up with an isomorphic concept for my next book. Here’s my email note to myself on that:pic.twitter.com/GG2I1umaiZ
4 replies 5 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I’m gonna need that unpacked a little (or a lot)... but I imagine that’s what the book is for?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
tldr: logical positivism is just wrong. Falsificationism is not even wrong, but gestures at an adjacent sound epistemolgy: a truth is like a log of experimental tinkering with an idea. There’s no such thing as “falsifiable in principle”. You’re either tweaking it or it’s dead.
2 replies 1 retweet 27 likes -
Replying to @vgr @KevinSimler
Embodied truths like an engineered artifact or a publishing medium can’t be true or false like propositions but they can be alive or dead, which is almost the same thing. You’re either tinkering with it, or it’s dead/untrue.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @vgr @KevinSimler
I treat "true" as "aligned with reality", like a trued-up board in carpentry. All artifacts have a "truth" of 1, just like past events have a "probability" of 1. Alive vs dead seems about whether future truths align with the artifact's reality? Important stat for me, if so.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
The past only has a notional unfalsifiable probability of 1. In practice, all histories are contingent on future revisionist data about the past.
-
-
Replying to @vgr @KevinSimler
All histories are false, but some are useful.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.