@MolemanPeter

Right? -- tho, isn't this line of reasoning already a paradox?

1. Participation: a. in what way might something which is not-our-universe participate in it?

b. Mustn't the demon be part of the universe to observe/ measure/ change it? -- what of the boundary?

2. Coherence: which reference frame captures all?

3. Representation: how to mentally-represent all characteristics of every phenomena?

4. Consequence: & without destroying everything!

Is Laplace describing our universe?

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

You're right Peter -- some, not all initially

I've encountered yogi's (at times hateful) rhetoric before, so did not feel compelled -- but I ought to have done before responding. That's on me

This piece has many interesting referenced ideas (a few of which I redundantly echoed, sigh) -- but also problematic word-play, false equivalences, and conclusions (which the book may address)

2.

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

Yogi, the dehumanisation of mechanics/ machine is just daft. We are machines -- why suggest machines are inhuman?

Did a cuddle lose all humanity for you because we describe the body in terms of biomechanics? (btw, did related healthcare improve or decline at the same time?)

In fact, we suffer most in areas of healthcare devoid of mechanistic account -- mental health in particular. It's totally fine to think other accounts also useful -- but deny the conversation?!

3.

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

Thanks, I'll read shortly. But to be clear "some mechanistic models aren't good" isn't a good argument against all; any more than "some abstractions aren't good ones" ought to render abstraction off limits

I love surfaces & essences – Hof couldn't fit more in, but he falls short around the edges

Analogy is "the logic of composed/ composable forms". Arguments like fuzzy-matching isn't mechanistic/ logic/ computational are odd

1.

@MolemanPeter @causalmechanics

I have been known to use salty language, to have strong opinions, and to loose my cool sometimes with shallow thinkers, but I do *not* criticize other people's work without reading it, ask them to summarize their work for me because I hate to read it, or make vague incriminating insinuations. I don't get upset with such weirdness, because I experience it all too often. But I have no patience with this kind of behavior, and wanted to make that crystal clear.

@yoginho @MolemanPeter

Yogi, the attached isn't "salty language", or a "strong opinion" – this is offensive, in language and intent. It is hateful

For those on the receiving end, "idiot savant" is used to dismiss, manipulate, undermine, gaslight and bully: for severe cases, this demonstrates indecency; for others, malicious misrepresentation

Seriously yogi, I've read your words for years chap – you followed this account until, what earlier today?!

Anyway, I hope this clarifies somewhat

@MolemanPeter

Peter, is this deep thinking?

@NicoleCRust

Nicole if i remember, you found this piece difficult to read, but defended Yogi at the time — is this just "salty language", or a "strong opinion"? Deep thinking? Necessary?

http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/the-thing-about-epistemic-humility