A similar "measure function is non-normalizable" argument is made at length in McGrew, T., McGrew, L., & Vestrup, E. (2001). Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Sceptical View. Mind, 110(440), 1027-1037.
I've been working on an interactive flash card app to supplement classical homeschooling called Boethius. It uses a spaced-repetition algorithm to economize on the students time and currently has exercises for (Latin) grammar, arithmetic, and astronomy.
Let me know what you think!
Do you happen to know where he discusses this idea?
Good call, I'll link to it from the poll.
Suspended Reason: you may find this philosophy poll of LWers from 8 years ago interesting. The poll results no longer render (as of the 2.0 reboot of LW), but the raw data can be found in this git repo.
Ah, yes: their headline is very misleading then! It currently reads "The coronavirus did not escape from a lab. Here's how we know."
I'll shoot the editor an email and see if they can correct it.
EDIT: Here's me complaining about the headline on Twitter.
Not sure if you have seen this yet, but they conclude:
Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus...
Are they assuming a false premise or making an error in reasoning somewhere?
No, lying seems to have a short term cost as well, since in the places where mask wearing is encouraged people are creating homemade masks (and donating their N95s to hospitals).
flattenthecurve.com is an informational website about the coronavirus with (as of this comment) over one million visitors. It has since become open source and is hosted on GitHub here.
Consider contributing to the project.
See here for a successful interaction involving the removal of an anti-mask wearing section (partially inspired by information obtained here on LessWrong).
Whoops, I already created another "answer". Thanks, did not know about that feature.