Interesting, but I think it's the other end of the equation where the real problem lies: voting. Given the facts that
1) A surprisingly large fraction of the US population has tried hard drugs of one kind or another.
2) Even those who haven't almost surely know people who have and seem to find it interesting/fascinating/etc.. not horrifying behavior that deserves prison time.
So why is it that people who would never dream of sending their friend who tried coke to prison or even the friend who sold that friend some of his stash how do we end up with draconian drug laws?
I don't have an easy answer. I'm sure the overton window and a desire to signal that they themselves are not pro-drug or drug users is part of the answer. It's like lowering the age of consent for sex. As long as the loudest voices arguing it should be legal for 40 year olds to sleep with 16 year olds are creeps few people will make that argument no matter how good.
But this doesn't really seem like enough to explain the phenomena.
So your intent here is to diagnose the conceptual confusion that many people have with respect to infinity yes? And your thesis is that: people are confused about infinity because they think it has a unique referant while in fact positive and negative infinity are different?
I think you are on to something but it's a little more complicated and that's what gets people are confused. The problem is that in fact there are a number of different concepts we use the term infinity to describe which is why it so super confusing (and I bet there are more).
1. Virtual Points that are above or below all other values in an ordered ring (or their positive component) which we use as shorthand to write limits and reason about how they behave.
2. The background idea of the infinite as meaning something that is beyond all finite values (hence why a point at infinity is infinite).
3. The cardinality of sets which are bijectable with a proper subset of themselves, i.e., infinite. Even here there is an ambiguity between the sets with a given cardinality and the cardinal itself.
4. The notion of absolute mathematical infinity. If this concept makes sense it does have a single reference which is taken to be 'larger' (usually in the sense of cardinality) than any possible cardinal, i.e. the height of the true hierarchy of sets.
5. The metaphorical or theological notion of infinity as a way of describing something beyond human comprehension and/or without limits.
The fact that some of these notions do uniquely refer while others don't is a part of the problem.
Stimulants are an excellent short term solution. If you absolutely need to get work done tonight and can't sleep amphetamine (i.e. Adderall) is a great solution. Indeed, there are a number of studies/experiments (including those the airforce relies on to give pilots amphetamines) backing up the fact that it improves the ability to get tasks done while sleep deprived.
Of course, if you are having long term sleep problems it will likely increase those problems.
There is a lot of philosophical work on this issue some of which recommends taking conditional probability as the fundamental unit (in which case Bayes theorem only applies for non-extremal values). For instance, see this paper
Computability is just \Delta^0_1 definability. There are plenty of other notions of definability you could try to cash out this paradox in terms of. Why pick \Delta^0_1 definability?
If the argument worked in any particular definability notion (e.g. arithmetic definability) it would be a problem. Thus, the solution needs to explain why the argument shouldn't convince you that with respect to any concrete notion of definable set the argument doesn't go through.
But that's not what the puzzle is about. There is nothing about computability in it. It is supposed to be a paradox along Russell's set of all sets that don't contain themselves.
The response about formalizing exactly what counts as a set defined by an English sentence is exactly correct.
Yah, enumerable means something different than computably enumerable.
This is just the standard sleeping beauty paradox and I’d suggest that the issue isn’t unique to FNC.
However, you are a bit quick in concluding it is time inconsistent as it’s not altogether clear that one is truly referring to the same event before and after you have the observation. The hint here is that in the standard sleeping beauty paradox the supposed update involves only information you already were certain you would get.
Id argue that what’s actually going on is that you are evaluating slightly different questions in the two cases
Don't. At least outside of Silicon Valley where oversubscription may actually be a problem. It's a good intention but it inevitably will make people worry they aren't welcome or aren't the right sort of people . Instead, describe what one does or what one talks about in a way that will appeal to the kind of people who would enjoy coming
Given that you just wrote a whole post to say hi and share your background with everyone I'm pretty confident you'll fit right in and won't have any problems being too shy. Writing a post like this rather than just commenting is such a less wrong kind of thing to do so I think you'll be right at home.