captainclam

Yeah, it's probably overall a positive thing that I've never been hooked on instagram, but it's also a language/shared experience with which I have no point of contact. I'm a little worried that not having a social media presence /at all/ is going to turn or has turned from mildly admirable (such restraint!) to...weird.

And it's great to be weird! I just hope that it doesn't impact potential connections in the future.

Do you have any conditions in the broad spectrum of "anxiety" disorders? I've had a pretty rocky relationship with my sympathetic nervous system; variably severe anxiety, some panic attacks, occasional bouts of depersonalization/derealization. It seems pretty likely that these symptoms spring from the same root cause as the "night terrors." Fortunately I'm not personally aware of a link between these issues and dementia, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone replies with a link to some study that ruins my day.

As for observation, I didn't suggest there was anything special about observing. In fact, this is part of what makes Everett among the most parsimonious interpretations: While some (not all) other interpretations are tasked with explaining the nature of observation (what counts as observation, how quickly does collapse propagate, etc), under Everett, there is no notion of observation at all. My point about consciousness is that, being conscious, we are forced to have a point of view which depends on where we exist in/on the wave function. I wasn't suggesting that consciousness has any actual effect whatsoever on the wavefunction.

I admit that the nature of probability is among the most difficult parts of Everett to wrestle with, though I'm not sure I understand why subsequent observations should follow a radically different pattern? It's still the same wavefunction with the same distributions as before...Schrodinger's equation is the same wherever you are on the wavefunction.

Genuinely curious, what do you mean by "but you didn't say it couldn't be this, nanananana...?" The Everett interpretation isn't some fantastical notion spun up by a scifi writer...it is simply the consequence of removing collapse of the wavefunction as an objective event from the picture. And if it turns out our observations wouldn't be changed by removing this feature, then perhaps it was an extraneous feature in the first place!

What the Everett interpretation suggests is that in the same way you are comfortable with the function f(x)=y having (infinitely) many values (you don't HAVE TO choose an x, ie the function doesn't collapse), the wavefunction simply is what it is and doesn't collapse either. What we observe as the collapse of a function is simply an artifact of being a conscious being that can only observe one value of the of the wavefunction at any particular moment.

None of these unique values (observables) of the wave function can interact with each other (in the same way the value of x=2 doesn't "interact" with the value of x=8 for f(x)=y), so energy cannot be gathered or duplicated at any particular point of the wave function, so this energy creation/duplication is no issue.

If I asked how biology worked, you wouldn't say "Survivorship bias: if biology didn't work, you wouldn't be here to ask the question."

It seems completely reasonable to object to using mammals in one’s tech projects, while admitting the value to using animal models to advance medical science.

That said: Netflix's deployment of "wokeness" can feel completely shoehorned in and utterly arbitrary, a cynical technique that affirms the viewers' perspective, thereby increasing engagement.

I'm not "outraged" by it in the slightest. It tends to align with my own worldview. But at the end of the day it just makes for crummy content.

The way this comment is written makes it sound as if 100% of people will be using psychedelics after decriminalization goes into effect.

I imagine that the number of people who even hear or read about these privacy leaks represent a minuscule fraction of the user base.

And of those that are aware of these leaks, a small fraction are concerned about internet privacy.

Try to see it from this perspective; your experience as an individual (soul) is a feature of the structure we call Homo sapiens. It's a characteristic of this species' brain structure, in the same way that the colors of a flower are characteristic of its phenotype.

It would be silly to ask, "What are the chances that that shade of yellow ended up on that particular daffodil?"

The notion of "you" being in a "body" is extremely difficult to shake. Even if it's intellectually approachable, understanding it intuitively is something else entirely, though certainly attainable through sustained meditative practice or a hearty dose of psychedelics.

I've heard a good deal about Alan Kay's dissent of the state of OOP, but I've never seen a concise summary of his vision or the principles that Kay's 'ideal' realization of OOP would adhere to.

Does such a resource exist, written by Kay himself or otherwise? Or do I just need to go play around with Obj C or Smalltalk to really "get it?"

However, I entirely agree with the sentiment: We don't necessarily understand brains now, but we don't dismiss their capabilities just because we can't explain precisely how they do what they do. By the same token, complex tools like deep learning shouldn't be dismissed just because we can't satisfactorily interpret them.

So I'd have a hard time saying this is not dramatically less "real" than some lossy compression technique. Is there some way to formalize "realness?" Maybe it would be inversely proportional to the hardness of manipulating the medium as a user..?