Nasher

@taijitu_sees It’s the ability to discern when the loss is valuable

Compression as intelligence seems to infer lossy and "lossless" forms of intelligence. But perhaps it's more accurate to see the split as aware of loss or unaware of loss. Left hemisphere intelligence being the epitome of unaware of loss.

@godspeed_aflame @Lambda_backlash You also see people incorrectly generalizing it to say something much stronger about the nature of truth

@Lambda_backlash you see people acting as if it proves that math is contradictory or something, when the theorem in fact requires the system to be internally consistent to prove incompleteness

godel's incompleteness is maybe the most widely misunderstood mathematical concept. people just seem to have no clue what it actually says

@godspeed_aflame Yes, when I actually read his paper, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was no defined notion of “truth” needed It just needed recursive

@MatjazLeonardis The idea is more that if you understand exactly what it is then you’re able to define exactly it’s boundaries and represented inside of a formal system Their may be other valid ways to understand or formalize it but you can argue that those are separate, albeit different, ideas

As many have noted this slogan is expressed in neither math nor code. But I have also seen plenty of ideas expressed in math/code that only made sense to people in light of additional explanation written in English. This is one of those slogans that is just false.

The best philosophers aren’t trying to do philosophy, they’re just trying to understand.

@HughAndFree The point I’m making here is that the limits of formal systems means much more than just the limits of logic. It is the limit of what anything could do.

@HughAndFree That’s fine, the style of thinking doesn’t change the limitations. If something isn’t impossible, it remains impossible thinking in pictures is still isomorphic to a more complicated formal system You can also represent hazy things have different levels of expressive capacity

Learning some extremely basic Metamathematics and model theory fundamentally changed the way I think and understand the world. It’s basically the rigorous philosophy of language stuff. I now better understand the structure and limits of thought

@HughAndFree However, we can still know what universe of numbers we intend to talk about using some sort of higher order logic that doesn’t actually let us prove things. There’s a trade-off between expressive capacity and proof ability in a system, this trade-off exists while you think too

@HughAndFree Nothing can break the rules, there is no recursively innumerable system that can represent all truths about numbers. Your brain is subject to the same limitation

@HughAndFree Tbh, i’m not sure which claim you’re referring to, the riggrios philosophy of language part, the structure of thought part, or the fundamentally changing the way I think part?

@207Nasher All ears! Always receptive to well-constructed brain candy.

@HughAndFree I’m happy to defend it

@207Nasher Woah that's a huge claim

@neocartesian @lu_sichu Looks like I’m not even a child yet, set theory is great, what’s the appeal for type theory?

childhood is when you idolize type theory; adulthood is when you realize ZFC isn't all bad

@krishnanrohit If you are using an expressive enough system, you can talk about the expressivity of your system in your system, they are limits to this but this can and is regularly done

@207Nasher No you cannot, not without actually hiding the complexity inside another function or variable, which defeats the entire objective.

Interesting intuition but unsurprisingly you cannot say this either in mathematics or code

@NathanpmYoung Goodhearts law, your signals will win long-term

It frustrates me when people care more about seeming sexist (using phrases, facial expressions) than actually being sexist (treating women fundamentally differently even after spending a minute in their company)

@ZyMazza Honestly, if they had any religious belief it would be a positive update, the less likely it is that they would have that belief by chance the larger the update

Good question for both theists and athiests alike: Is there a first contact scenario that would cause you to update your p((a)theism)?