I’ve always thought ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ is flawed for material truths because of the second law: presence of X, X being at different entropy from background, would necessarily produce evidence. No fire without smoke basically https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence …
-
If you allow everything from simulation hypothesis to Pascal’s wager as a frame of reference of course you’ll always find an interpretation where absence is weak evidence of something. I find it more useful to work with narrower worlds.
Example: I don’t see an elephant in my room right now. In a tight reference universe that’s evidence of absence of an elephant in my room.
In a simulator universe it’s possible simulators have just turned off my visibility of elephant for lulz
I don’t find that interesting 
-
-
i don’t understand anything you’re saying, it seems completely nonsensical to me. is this what “rationalists” are about
-
Never mind then
- 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.