Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?

[TimeSeeker]

It's pretty common actually. People who get too lost in information theory / emergence / instrumentalism, including many scientists unfortunately, tend to lose the ability to realize what's abstract and what's concrete, even though they use abstract thinking all the time. Imo it's starting to cause a major problem in science.

You missed the point. Nature has NO TAXONOMIES. The very fact that YOU are drawing an "abstract vs concrete" taxonomy means that YOU are making an error in reasoning.

Is entropy concrete or abstract? It doesn't matter how you classify it. What matters is that entropy is going to kill us.

A deadly abstraction! Imagine that.

Some people have goals, other don't. I don't truly have a goal, if I had to name something, it would be figuring out as much about existence as I can (and then maybe see if I can use some of it to my advantage). But I'm basically on this forum just for fun, no particular reason. Also, maybe someone can say something I haven't considered yet.

Ah! What are you criteria for "figuring" things out? How will you know that you have "figured existence" out?

[Atla]

You missed the point. Nature has NO TAXONOMIES. The very fact that YOU are drawing an "abstract vs concrete" taxonomy means that YOU are making an error in reasoning.

Is time abstract or concrete? Is temperature abstract or concrete? Is global warming abstract or concrete?

Is entropy concrete or abstract? It doesn't matter how you classify it.

You can stop know, you prove me right with every comment. You don't understand the deal with abstract thinking.

What matters is that entropy is going to kill us.

I wouldn't worry about that, I would worry about surviving the next 100 years first.

Ah! What are you criteria for "figuring" things out? How will you know that you have "figured existence" out?

Figuring out as much as possible.
I guess it's something like: that my worldview is as simple as possible, matches the world we see perfectly/explains everything, contains no contradictions etc.

[TimeSeeker]

I wouldn't worry about that, I would worry about surviving the next 100 years first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

I've already given up hope that I will make it to a 100. I do science because I am hoping some day, all humans will get to.

Ego death. I don't matter.

We matter

[TimeSeeker]

You can stop know, you prove me right with every comment. You don't understand the deal with abstract thinking.

Translation: You don't use thinking for the same thing as I do. Therefore your way is "wrong" and my way is "right".

[Atla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

I've already given up hope that I will make it to a 100. I do science because I am hoping some day, all humans will get to.

Wasn't talking about you, but humanity in general.

Ego death. I don't matter.

We matter

That's not what's meant by ego death.

Translation: You don't use thinking for the same thing as I do. Therefore your way is "wrong" and my way is "right".

The deal with abstract thinking isn't about ways, and it isn't about taxonomies of nature.

[TimeSeeker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

I've already given up hope that I will make it to a 100. I do science because I am hoping some day, all humans will get to.

Wasn't talking about you, but humanity in general.

Yeah, but you've already rejected the notion of complexity. To you it's just a "big" thing-of-itself and a "small" "thing-of-itself".

That suggests to me that you lack understanding of how complexity is directly connected to ALL human problem solving. From medicine to economics.

The entire fields of complexity and systems theory is missing from your radar.

That's not what's meant by ego death.

And you still refer to the dictionary and other people's ideas for definitions

The deal with abstract thinking isn't about ways, and it isn't about taxonomies of nature.

It's just a tool. If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid.

[Atla]

Yeah, but you've already rejected the notion of complexity. To you it's just a "big" thing-of-itself and a "small" "thing-of-itself".

That suggests to me that you lack understanding of how complexity is directly connected to ALL human problem solving. From medicine to economics.

The entire fields of complexity and systems theory is missing from your radar.

I rejected complexity as a reified abstraction, as an agent. Again you missed the point.

Nowadays people can say bullshit like: consciousness is an emergent property arising out of computational complexity. And get away with it, maybe they even get invited to do a TED talk.

[TimeSeeker]

Yeah, but you've already rejected the notion of complexity. To you it's just a "big" thing-of-itself and a "small" "thing-of-itself".

That suggests to me that you lack understanding of how complexity is directly connected to ALL human problem solving. From medicine to economics.

The entire fields of complexity and systems theory is missing from your radar.

I rejected complexity as a reified abstraction, as an agent. Again you missed the point.

Nowadays people can say bullshit like: consciousness is an emergent property arising out of computational complexity. And get away with it, maybe they even get invited to do a TED talk.

OK but complexity stands in your way of understanding.

That's why you call it a "cat" instead of 7^87 atoms arranged in THIS particular way.

[Atla]

Yeah, but you've already rejected the notion of complexity. To you it's just a "big" thing-of-itself and a "small" "thing-of-itself".

That suggests to me that you lack understanding of how complexity is directly connected to ALL human problem solving. From medicine to economics.

The entire fields of complexity and systems theory is missing from your radar.

I rejected complexity as a reified abstraction, as an agent. Again you missed the point.

Nowadays people can say bullshit like: consciousness is an emergent property arising out of computational complexity. And get away with it, maybe they even get invited to do a TED talk.

OK but complexity stands in your way of understanding.

That's why you call it a "cat" instead of 7^87 atoms arranged in THIS particular way.

That's an unrelated issue.

[TimeSeeker]

That's an unrelated issue.

You think complexity is unrelated to understanding? Then indeed we are talking different languages to different ends.

What is your relevance filter?

If there is one root cause for why we can't find truth/knowledge/whatever we seek from the universe it is BECAUSE it is too complex for our tiny brains.

[Atla]

That's an unrelated issue.

You think complexity is unrelated to understanding? Then indeed we are talking different languages to different ends.

What is your relevance filter?

If there is one root cause for why we can't find truth/knowledge/whatever we seek from the universe it is BECAUSE it is too complex for our tiny brains.

That's an unrelated issue. All this time I was talking about the abstract vs concrete. The reification fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

We can talk about information, complexity, understanding, after we have understood the reification fallacy. Btw I'm not completely ignorant about these topics, I studied computer sciences (ironically it's called Informatics in my country) and am also heavily interested in psychology.

Let's end the discussion.

[TimeSeeker]

It's hardly worth bickering about.

The map is not the territory is my mantra. And yet - the map is the best representation of the territory each one of us has.

So I am not sure your objection? Since everything in your head is a map - why further delineate it into concrete vs abstract?

Why not simply say "I want the most useful map possible".

I want to be less wrong.

Some mistakes are more costly than others. Like ENTROPY WILL KILL US. It's far more pressing a concern than maps and territories.

At least to me. You don't seem to think so.

[TimeSeeker]

Lete me demonstrate: What is the concrete shape of the Earth? Should we ground all airplanes because we can't answer this question?

Pragmatism doesn't require perfectionism

[Atla]

...

Oh yeah there was one thing that I wanted to mention.

Have you ever considered this idea based on the Anthropic principle: maybe the universe as a whole has no arrow of time, it has no increasing entropy. But exactly because we are human, we have to live in a part of the universe where entropy seems to be increasing. Otherwise for example we couldn't build memories.

We need to have an apparent increase of "entropy" and "information" around these parts, to have an intelligent, self-reflecting beings with a technological civilization. I think the above and determinism are the obvious default view, even if this may be forever unprovable.

Btw yes entropy will still kill us.. but isn't that at least a few ten billion years in the future?

[TimeSeeker]

Have you ever considered this idea based on the Anthropic principle: maybe the universe as a whole has no arrow of time, it has no increasing entropy. But exactly because we are human, we have to live in a part of the universe where entropy seems to be increasing. Otherwise for example we couldn't build memories.

Yes. I have. The Anthropic principle may be sufficient for "explaining" the arrow of time. It is insufficient for controlling time.

And if we care about human survival then there is really only one problem worth solving: conquering factorial time-complexity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation ). Controlling (or creating!) time.


This is the reason for my nickname and the reason for my (recently started) blog/pet-project.

http://www.whatisti.me/2018/09/02/Openi ... s-box.html