alanforr_duplicate0.6027038989367575
7
8
alanforr_duplicate0.6027038989367575 has not written any posts yet.
alanforr_duplicate0.6027038989367575 has not written any posts yet.
This article has substantive advice on how to be open minded:
Okay. You can't name any problem that would be solved by a reply. So there is no reason for the recipient of your message to reply. So the values underlying your emotions are irrational and you should look into changing them. See
If you currently feel like you lack respect and that's important to you, then you have an unsolved problem. You have an unsolved problem and don't know how to solve it. So you don't know what questions are relevant. If you did know what questions are relevant you would have answered them already and you would no longer have the problem. So you should be willing to answer a question even if it seems irrelevant to your problem.
What difference would it make if this person replied? What problem would it solve for you? What problem would it solve for her?
Newtons theory of relativity has flaws but it's still a good idea and can be used in plenty of cases.
No it can't. It can only be used in situations where it happens to agree with reality. That's not the same as the theory being correct.
... (read more)The amount of goodness approach has no objective way to determine the sizes of the amounts, so it leads to subjective bias instead of objective knowledge, and it creates unresolvable disagreements between people.
There's nothing bad about two people with different priors coming to different conclusions. It creates an intellectual climate where a lot of different ideas get explored. Most breakthrough ideas have plenty of flaws at their birth
This link proposes a new improvement on epistemology:
Why would we need more research to work out that the simulation hypothesis is a bad idea? Computational universality implies that if we were being simulated on a computer, it would be impossible for us to know about the underlying hardware. Any hardware that implements a universal set of computational gates can support universal computation. There are lots of different kinds of universal gates, so you can't tell what gates are being used by looking at the results of a computation. So the simulation hypothesis does no work in explaining what we observe. The simulation hypothesis also implies we can't understand the real laws of physics, the physics of the simulator, since no experiment we conduct can tell us anything about the hardware. Another problem: the simulation might be programmed to change the laws of physics arbitrarily so it ruins all of our existing knowledge of the laws of physics and everything else.
There are no answers to these criticisms so the simulation hypothesis is false.
Your emotions are not a problem relevant to the person you're writing to unless that person knows you extremely well and has some specific reason to be concerned about your emotions, e.g. - your mother or your spouse.
My advice is that... (read more)