In encouraging people to make models that fit their particular psychology me make them use models that are rare or seldom threaded. This might give them illusory sense of uniqueness, they might not benefit or expect to benefit from the knowledge of others.
Coming up with their own models they might have unique problems that if we encourage to take their own constructions seriously they will have problems that we don't have answers to. A geology teacher teaching that earth is round in some capacity needs to be able to deal with flat-earther talking-pint and fumble points. taking a positivde spin on this is "they make their own reserach questions" but making a bad spin is "we spend more time of doing it wrong in X ways rather than the known working ways"
If you've prided yourself on believing what the Great Teacher says—even when it seems harsh, even when you'd rather not—that may make it all the more bitter a pill to swallow, to admit that the Great Teacher is a fraud, and all your noble self-sacrifice was for naught.
I read it to be more about getting over your workedness to get to the goal.
Crying over the amount of spilt ink doesn't have that much epistemic relevance. That your particle accelerator cost X million dollars doesn't make it produce better data. Truth can be frustrating and unfair in that sense.
If a single naive person can say "The emperor has no clothes" and all the epistemics come falling down, maybe they should come falling down. With solid deconfusion even if a single authority figure says "I am not convinced" the solace from the work itself should be plenty.
This plea that the issue should be handled in the tone of seriousness seems like a bad application of social pressure. We shouldn't need swearing on bibles. Using the role of constituting community beliefs as social-versus game value chips seems bad.
It would only say that you are such a 4d or 5d construct. It remains more nebolous to say what it feels like on the inside.
If you had a biological organism and then did a brain scan of their brains waited 1000 years and then downloaded the brain scan to a new biological brain then computationaly there would probably be a 1000 year gap in the experience. If there is non-computational aspect to conciousness one could think that there are separate consioucness experiencing the same computational state for the while the state is in "stasis".
Given typical fysics the computational states of the 3d slices of the 4d and 5d objects would be synchornised enough to give "all at once" experiences.
While the time travel paradoxes are derived from the logical paradoxes, if you have a theory that unambigiously says what happens it can be contradiction free even if it has grandfather paradoxes. There can be theories wrong about how a game of Achron will go.
I primarily would just benefit from understanding the connection bit by bit. "round things look round" can seem simple because I understand stuff like blocked from sight objects not looking like anything and that a fisheye lense might exactly cancel the roundness of a round to to make it not round. I can calcuate paths that light rays take what kind of pictures form on retinas.
If one has a ontology strong enough to handle paradoxes one can have time flowlyness from non-copenhagen sources by having meta-time and meta-time evolution even if the ("historical") time would "stay still".
I might have mischaracterised what I had issues with (I don't know whether it exactly matches to ask "We have a tree. If we would be tasked on how to make a tree how would we have done it? We would have made an acorn."). You have knowledge that A->B,B->T,C->T, D->T and T and then you are asked why is T? So one might answer A because it is the "deepest" cause. In this kind of search you get something "more prior" but it is not clear why it didn't branch into the C or D directions. And if we are asking a question "under which conditions does T obtain?" one would care about all open avenues.
When Newton was writing text introducing newtonian laws he kinda skipped over defining or explaining time. Einstein did a whole of more of defining what he means and those details turn out to be somewhat relevant for the content. I wouldn't be that surprised if the textbook on Quantum Gravity would require/introduce even finer distinctions. The more fundamental a thing is the more interest it is to know it very thoroughly. Believing in absoluteness of simultaneuity is pretty simple. But in order to appriciate relativity of simultaneity you have to appriciate the complexity and the details.
The default outcome of "I dunno,a complete mystery" is better at an explanation task. We also don't want a teleological "because" but a "base nature implies" because.
Logic like "Why there would be an appearance of a god, if not because god exists?" and "Why there would be appearance of red surfaces, if not for colors existing in the world?" are misleading. Surfaces being selectively reflective for different electromagnetic radiation is by itself not that reflective which proportion of creatures are blind, monochromats, dichromats, trichromats or tetrachromats. And especially the edge case of there being colored light beams but all creatures being blind breaks the required implications.
I couldn't come up with a direct example that would block that specific property from propagating but I did have a good example of a different property definetely getting blocked.
If smooth physical time doesn't lead into smooth psychological time why would flowing physical time lead into flowing psychological time?
I was thinking of fields. I am doing a pretty bad math sin (atleast for the context) on not being precise and referring to the right target with "distributes over the other". It is too foggy in my mind, I faintly recall something about being able to project + structures into * via something, but is wasn't as straighforward and trivial than I thought.
While there migth have been at various point paid various amounts of attention on which things should be named and which should not be I doubt that it is completely reconstructible from anonymising everything and building it back again. A thing being named is somewhat sticky and will probably push back to outstay its welcome partly because of terminological inertia. A significant reason why we call things we call them is that other know what we are referring to and that it is customary.
I am a bit hazy what I am hesitant about. My threat model generates that things could be worse in the form that ring multiplication might have a different word from field multiplication which could have a different word than archimedian field multiplication. And there is a way trying to understand "group has two operations that distribute over each other" which can try to get rid of having multiplication and addition as separate entities.
If one does this too much the result it so abstract it is hard to get a handle on. But on the other direction naming every single quirk forms a zoo where it is hard to see patterns and systems.
It seem a lot of times if I bother too look up what is the "definition" of a thing it ends up being a list of 5 or so axiom like things. And there is about 10-15 of axiom types or axioms that appear them. BUt the trouble is that the different combinations that appear make a combinatorial explosion. And then some people think you should be able to connect names to those definitions as a "shorthand".