Live data from Hacker News

Adversarial Collaboration

edge.org

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#81
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hobby is to look for a physics theory of everything (ToE). I have virtually no chance at succeeding at this, but it's fun reading through random junk on ArXiV. I noticed something similar: You can find papers by clearly crazy people that have nuggets of good ideas in them. Odd bits of mathematics they reference might be an interesting rabbithole to go down, even if it ultimately leads nowhere. The whole thing remi…

Have you taken a look at Wolframs ToE? I found it pretty intriguing.

He's about half a dozen giant steps from a theory making qualitative predictions matching the physics of our universe, but not others. His only advantage is that his starting point is more foundational than pretty much anyone else, but that also makes it very unlikely that he'll ever develop something with predictive power.

My current set of candidate pet theories are all based on a vaguely similar foundational notion that the physical universe isn't made up of "matter on top space-time", but rather that there is a single space-time-matter fabric.

For example, to create matter, space-time must be affected (curved). Or to put it another way, all particles have mass-energy (spacetime curvature) because they are space-time-matter curvature. The idea is to unify QM and GR by making fundamental particles have geometric properties that satisfy GR at all scales.

Some of these notions are present in Wolfram's ToE implicitly, so it's possible that there is a connection. However, he isn't yet at the point where he can derive, say, the mass of an electron from first principles based on how much its specific topology curves space-time-matter.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice. We encourage them to be vocal when they see an opportunity for change in our institution and in the world. Would you want anything less in an academic institution? That's the entire point of places of higher learning.

But it's not really higher learning is it? As the parent indicated, they're not willing to even communicate with people who don't parrot their own ideas.

What do you consider higher learning? Learning how to screw in a lightbulb, or how to turn manipulate people into clicking on ads?

> As the parent indicated, they're not willing to even communicate with people who don't parrot their own ideas.

That's the exact opposite of what I quoted. They invite criticism of the status quo, and push for greater justice in the world. Most decent human beings agree with that.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#83
post #57
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. Who isn't a member of a group? We're all members of a number of groups. It's refreshing that Kahneman honestly admits that he doesn't change his mind either, and his tastes were formed when he was relatively young. He's not putting himself above the rest of hu…

Maybe I'm uncommon in this aspect, but I don't feel like I'm a member of many groups. I'm not religious, but don't really consider myself an atheist. I'm not for any particular party. I don't care about sports. I'm Canadian, but don't live there and don't feel like I belong there either. I suppose you could say I'm part of the group of Caucasian males by birth or part of the group of software engineers by trade, but…

Same here. Something I always find hilarious is conversations with people who's opinions are very polarised due to their membership in groups. For example, I have a friends that are variously: a Christian priest, libertarian, anti-vaxxers, and Trump supporters.

Invariably, in every discussion, they'll trot out this sentence: "You people always think ".

For example: "You Liberal party voters always support lowering taxes" or somesuch sentence.

I point out that I didn't vote for the Liberal party.

"The Labour party voters are the same!"

I point out I didn't vote for Labour either in the most recent election either.

"Err..."

-- at this point their brain locks up, because they're expecting a tribe-vs-tribe fight and they have no idea what to do when they discover I don't actually belong to their "enemy tribe".

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a book called How to Win Friends and Influence People -- pay attention to the order :-) first become a group member, in the eyes of the other person, and then there's a chance he/she will be open to something new > almost not worth listening to their arguments At the same time, their arguments are likely the-least-dumb / most-intelligent things they've been able to come up with, to rationalize their group's i…

You make it sound so simple. Becoming a group member in this context means corrupting oneself. You are what you do. You are the last action you take. If you deceive the other externally while holding different positions internally, you are those external positions, and the internal is the deception. Those that lie to themselves this way have nothing to offer the group and will certainly never "make a change from the…

More books for you :-)

Never Split the Difference. And Nonviolent Communication.

Because just listening to others, and showing that you care about and understand what they're saying, can go a long way. Not always a need to actually do anything in the real world (or to say or pretend that you agree).

Maybe theoretically this won't place you in their old group, still, you'll a bit form a new group where you and that other person are friends

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#85
post #57
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. Who isn't a member of a group? We're all members of a number of groups. It's refreshing that Kahneman honestly admits that he doesn't change his mind either, and his tastes were formed when he was relatively young. He's not putting himself above the rest of hu…

Maybe I'm uncommon in this aspect, but I don't feel like I'm a member of many groups. I'm not religious, but don't really consider myself an atheist. I'm not for any particular party. I don't care about sports. I'm Canadian, but don't live there and don't feel like I belong there either. I suppose you could say I'm part of the group of Caucasian males by birth or part of the group of software engineers by trade, but…

The exact same thingbhappens with groups like programming team or sports club.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#86

Fun fact, edge.org and the Edge Foundation was generously funded by Jeffrey Epstein -- without him, Edge probably wouldn't exist as it does. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep... . From 2001 to 2017, "foundations associated with Epstein provided $638,000 out of a total of almost $857,000 received by Edge over this period." So basically Epstein funded 80% of Edge's budget.

He paid for 100% of the "billionaire dinners" where all of Silicon Valley showed up

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#87

Fun fact, edge.org and the Edge Foundation was generously funded by Jeffrey Epstein -- without him, Edge probably wouldn't exist as it does. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep... . From 2001 to 2017, "foundations associated with Epstein provided $638,000 out of a total of almost $857,000 received by Edge over this period." So basically Epstein funded 80% of Edge's budget.

Didn't he fund a ton of different scientific organizations?

Edge and TED were his favorites tho

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#88
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called a “rhetorical device” and you’d struggle to find a lengthy article that does not employ rhetorical devices. It’s a big part of how communication works.

I wonder if there is a term for this kind of objection. I’m starting to see more and more people demand quantifiers or conditional disqualifiers on statements that shouldn’t reasonably be considered as absolutes. And, the fact that bringing up that whatever assertion is being made is not a universal absolute doesn’t really add anything to the understanding. Which statement is better, “people don’t like the smell of s…

Personally, I am glad that culture is moving away from rewarding confident certain statements that are simply untrue.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not really higher learning is it? As the parent indicated, they're not willing to even communicate with people who don't parrot their own ideas.

What do you consider higher learning? Learning how to screw in a lightbulb, or how to turn manipulate people into clicking on ads? > As the parent indicated, they're not willing to even communicate with people who don't parrot their own ideas. That's the exact opposite of what I quoted. They invite criticism of the status quo, and push for greater justice in the world. Most decent human beings agree with that.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN