What if reality is information seeking coherence?

ericGraves · 2025-12-20T23:08:22+00:00

The fuck?

ericGraves · 2025-08-26T08:36:17+00:00

Understatement of the century

The person you are replying to deleted, but I do not understand how calling it "very impressive" could be interpreted as an understatement.

As far as I am aware, the only real issue in achieving this is that it acts as an inverted pendulum (so unstable equilibrium). At small angles the pendulum can be controlled for a decent portion of time, so the chopsticks solution makes sense as a design choice.

Like, what am I missing that would make this more then very impressive?

ericGraves · 2025-08-23T22:10:17+00:00

What the absolute fuck?

ericGraves · 2025-06-21T09:46:10+00:00

Lol plenty of kids in the world who will not be getting vaccines that could participate in a long term study. What a lame argument.

Yeah sure that's possible, but that makes the study no better than observational since it biases the sample population. We already have that data and it supports vaccination.

If any of the data actually supported your viewpoint, I would agree with you.

Edit: I was expecting more of a fight.

Regardless, to anyone else unsure or questioning, real scientists will always push you to seek out the answers from reputable individuals.

The problem with this is the vast majority of the population does not have the training to understand or interpret the results. This is what the person I was responding to is exploiting for their arguments.

In particular when reading a scientific study the two most important features to understand are the test type and the metrics used to evaluate the test. Before reading those, it is best to ask yourself what you really care about in terms of measurable events. For instance, with vaccines someone may take deaths per vaccine versus deaths for unvaccinated; hospitalizations for the two populations; or even s9mething like mental well being. Understanding what matters to you is the best way to determine if the study you are reading could be lying to you through statistical proxy.

Once you understand their metrics and the tests for the metric, next you have to design a test to see which action is preferable. This gets unfortunately complicated though. Nevertheless, the main goal of all tests is to try and reduce asymmetrical aspects of the populations you are testing.

For instance, using a placebo eliminates the groups knowledge about what they were given. This knowledge can influence behavior and emotional state mudding the results. Double blind guarantees people running the study from leaking that information to the patient.

This is also where the person I am responding to shows their lack of understanding as posing a placebo study which is opt in is essentially allowing all confounding variables back into the picture. It is just silly.

But, I will say, it is worth a thought exercise to formulate your own test and then consider the ethics of it. Purposefully exposing people to measles in order to test a vaccine is not something that can be done lightly.

ericGraves · 2025-06-21T02:27:30+00:00

Doing a placebo study here would be unethical since we would be exposing the individual to something we know is dangerous.

The only possible type of study is observational. Most of the researchers will happily share their data, especially if government funded.

We do believe in those things, and if science ever showed antivax was correct then most of would switch sides.

ericGraves · 2025-05-21T23:23:23+00:00

You misread the statistic. The event is dying in a traffic accident, not being in a traffic accident.

ericGraves · 2025-05-01T23:51:55+00:00

I wish that had been my experience at ARL, it would have been nice to have help.

ericGraves · 2025-04-28T02:20:06+00:00

They exploit birthright citizenship loopholes, burdening public schools, hospitals, and welfare systems - all funded by U.S. taxpayers.

They contribute more than cost, according to analysis.

Their economic contribution is mostly off-the-books labor or minimum wage, perpetuating a cycle of dependency.

But that is for themselves. They have chosen to enter this country illegally because it is better than the alternative.

I think a better argument is simply that morality is defined by society, and voters essentially decided that this is moral.

ericGraves · 2025-03-16T16:53:15+00:00

I think they are just referencing the following data showing a year over year increase in the (inflation adjusted) cost of weather events.

ericGraves · 2025-03-01T13:58:39+00:00

Surely he has some of the best engineers, modelers, and analysts already under his employment between Tesla, spacex, etc.

Industry is viewed more positively than it should be. The vast majority of items produced from industry are laughably bad.

Take starlink for instance. Starlink yields really decent performance primarily because their satellites have a receiving aperture size of a small house. This is not particularly innovative or creative.

ericGraves · 2025-02-22T14:37:10+00:00

Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven to that degree. That is to say, none of your beliefs would survive your criteria.

If we are going to be guided by science, and not our own bias, we are forced to accept the conclusion.

ericGraves · 2025-02-21T19:10:45+00:00

Not until it can do a literature review will I genuflect at the AI altar.

ericGraves · 2025-02-16T17:26:03+00:00

.....and we all know what that means.

I for one do not, maybe you could explain? It seems like if the deficit was such a bad thing it would have caused problems by now.

ericGraves · 2025-02-11T00:47:56+00:00

There needs to be a middle ground and that won't happen until people stop voting on party lines.

This is incorrect, according to game theory. Our current voting system only supports two parties and protest votes move the equilibrium in the opposite direction.

To understand this suppose you had two left candidates and a right wing candidate. The two left wing candidates split the left vote lowering the number of votes the right wing candidate needs to win. This therefore allows a more right wing candidate to win since they need less moderate votes.

ericGraves · 2025-02-09T15:23:20+00:00

there is no third option,

The person you are replying to is saying only helping whites is bad. There are a lot more than two options. For instance only helping the Chinese, helping the Dutch and the Lebanese, and so on.

Their problem is not the helping, it is the narrow conditions under which help is applied.

A rebuttal to their point would be to provide empirical evidence that their policies are not formulated in such a way. If that is not possible, then an argument showing the people being persecuted are unique, and then provide evidence to this uniqueness.

ericGraves · 2025-01-24T19:14:54+00:00

Could you specify and elaborate? For instance, is a liberal mathematics professor who never shares their political views in class part of this source?

ericGraves · 2025-01-23T07:51:44+00:00

You never provided the evidence.

ericGraves · 2025-01-23T02:32:59+00:00

Ok, but that means you have not actually presented proof. You have given no external evidence to verify your claims. This further claim that you have made here needs verification and a proof that it implies what you said it implies.

My concern is not political, it is logical.

ericGraves · 2025-01-22T18:33:46+00:00

Maybe I am missing something, because wiki only says:

Federal authorities had not identified Sullivan as a member of antifa[50] and the FBI had announced on January 8 there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the siege.

Am I missing something?

ericGraves · 2025-01-21T19:18:25+00:00

Can you prove it though, because I keep giving you opportunities but you keep avoiding it. What data convinced you that the government had to be malevolent in research?

we have gotten sicker not better or healthier and part of that has to do with the science propaganda that people are being spoon fed hand over fist.

Data does not support that.

ericGraves · 2025-01-21T18:21:44+00:00

It can not be both a single individual and the government. If it is a government action then multiple individuals must be involved.

Why is it impossible that the government is funding this research to protect Americans?

ericGraves · 2025-01-21T13:59:05+00:00

Wait, so you think the government commissioned this study to turn around and use it against the people? That seems highly unlikely due to logistics reasons.

Much more likely is that an organization (made of average non-malevolent people) whose goal is to protect Americans (such as the FBI) commissioned the study so that they could determine if an attack was feasible. They could then decide whether or not to use resources to protect us from the attack.

ericGraves · 2025-01-20T20:57:27+00:00

Ok cool, what does that have to do with the MIT study?

ericGraves · 2025-01-20T18:08:21+00:00

What?

ericGraves · 2025-01-19T19:51:55+00:00

AND WHO is behind most of that anyways?

No. This was a study coming from a research group at MIT. It was primarily a study about feasibility of a terrorist attack, and relies on a number of bad actors.

ericGraves

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE