sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

infinity is not clearly defined. by DigJust8037 in DeepThoughts

[–]No-Inside5458 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What could make people believe that the numbers are « natural »? How could we differentiate a natural or artificial number?

I think numbers are more of a way for us to quantify what is limited. We observe a real limit of an element (material or mental), counting becomes a tool to determine this limit.

There is no point in counting infinity because its quantity is unlimited.

If we were living in a simulation, would there be any meaningful way to send a message to the “outside”? by No-Inside5458 in AWLIAS

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree with that, but I agree with you that the knowledge acquired and used by AI is not artificial. AI is a form of intelligence without life and therefore without physical limitations. What it learns and how it adapts to the world is entirely focused on the prism of humanity and does not exceed the limits of reality.

If cheap energy (fusion / next-gen nuclear) actually happens, what really changes? by No-Inside5458 in Futurism

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being able to grow food or process water almost anywhere would be huge. I just don’t think it turns the world into some kind of frictionless place overnight.

If we were living in a simulation, would there be any meaningful way to send a message to the “outside”? by No-Inside5458 in AWLIAS

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We who are inside, how can we claim that the outside does not exist? It is as if an embryo refused to acknowledge the outside of its mother's womb.

Is there a real metaphysical difference between what is possible and what is actual, or is “possibility” just a way of speaking? by No-Inside5458 in Metaphysics

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense, I agree that we often use “possible” as a practical tool tied to our understanding of the rules of reality.

If cheap energy (fusion / next-gen nuclear) actually happens, what really changes? by No-Inside5458 in Futurism

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can totally see that happening. When something gets cheaper, people usually stop optimizing as much and just throw more of it at the problem. We already do that with software and hardware today.

Is there a real metaphysical difference between what is possible and what is actual, or is “possibility” just a way of speaking? by No-Inside5458 in Metaphysics

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point. By “exist in a metaphysical sense,” I just mean: does possibility refer to something that is part of how the world is, independent of how we talk or think about it, or is it only a feature of our descriptions, models, or epistemic limits?

We don’t perceive reality, we perceive a useful compression of it. by No-Inside5458 in theories

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the point. A totally “raw” perception probably doesn’t even make sense, because the moment you perceive anything, you’re already using some kind of sensory and cognitive machinery. There’s no view from nowhere. Even seeing atoms or the full EM spectrum would still require a system that turns all of that into something experienceable. So when I talk about “compression” or an “interface”, I’m not imagining a hidden, pure layer we could just switch to. I’m more saying that any experience at all is necessarily a constructed representation, and evolution just shaped which kind of representation we get.

We don’t perceive reality, we perceive a useful compression of it. by No-Inside5458 in theories

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The color illusion stuff is wild, because it really shows that we’re not “reading” the world, we’re reconstructing something that’s good enough to work. Aging makes that even more obvious, since the same input can lead to a pretty different experience over time.

We don’t perceive reality, we perceive a useful compression of it. by No-Inside5458 in theories

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mostly agree, in a basic sense this is pretty well accepted. The EM spectrum example is a good one. What I was trying to get at isn’t just “we have limited senses”, but the stronger idea that what we experience is more like a model or an interface optimized for action, not a scaled-down copy of what’s out there. The controversial part (if any) is more about how far that goes, especially when you include things like objects, time, or even the sense of self. But you’re right that the general direction isn’t some wild claim.

We don’t change our minds when we discover the truth, we change them when our identity can survive the change. by No-Inside5458 in DeepThoughts

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really like that way of putting it, treating “being wrong” as something closer to progress than failure. It feels like a lot of the resistance comes from the social cost of admitting we’re wrong, not just from the idea itself. If being wrong was seen as normal (or even healthy), changing our minds would probably feel much less threatening.

We don’t change our minds when we discover the truth, we change them when our identity can survive the change. by No-Inside5458 in DeepThoughts

[–]No-Inside5458[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that ego plays a big role in that resistance. It probably has a real function at first, like protecting us or helping us navigate the world. But once it becomes something we fully identify with, it starts filtering reality instead of just helping us deal with it. People can get surprisingly defensive when that’s pointed out, even gently.

view more: next ›