Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


If it only takes five minutes, it is like buying a loaf of bread.

Does the world seem better to young people who are unable to afford housing?

Most knowledge is useless. Many people have heads filled with sport results and entertainment trivia. 50 years ago, people used to fix their own cars and make their own clothes.

There's a powerful argument for smaller populations you didn't mention at all: it would mean that there are more inelastic resources to go round. More land, so less of a housing crisis, fossil fuels that last longer. Note that while.high population worlds have them own advantage, in being able supply products that depend on economies of scale, those products are things advanced semi conductors, which are something of a luxury compared to land and energy

He doesn't give The Answer. That's one of the problems. I've read the sequences, and I don't think his approach is that good. The other problem is that doing high-cost things at random, in the hope that they will pay off, is very inefficient.

Answers to such questions as the OP’s cannot be given, like a loaf of bread sold in a shop. They must be learned, like taking a course in calculus

The problem with that theory is that you can invest years in something , and still not get the answer.

But the separation between probabilities and credences is not helpful. They have to be one and the same, otherwise something unlawful is going on.

I don't see why. If someone is messing with you, eg. by wiping your memory, then your subjective credences could depart from objective probabilities.

It's about one of the things "truth" means. If you want to apply it to ontology, you need a kind of evidence that's relevant to ontology -- that can distinguish hypotheses that make similar predictions.

The usual explanation is alcohol related death among russian men.

I'm not saying they don't work at all. I have no problem with prediction.

I notice that you didn't tell me how the methods of rationality work in this particular case. Did you notice that I conceded that they work in others?

If this website is about believing things that cannot be proven, and have never been explained, then it is "rationalist" not rationalist.

Load More