SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Feb 18th, 2020 85 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. {02:34:31 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BM38UEGlIA
  2. {02:34:32 pm:} <`411> [YouTube] Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - In Our Time | Uploader: Philosophy Overdose | Uploaded: 2016-11-02 - 13:48:57 | Length: 41m 58s | Views: 74,349 | Comments: 104 | 1,013+ | 30-
  3. {02:34:32 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - In Our Time - YouTube
  4. {02:45:43 pm:} <Impresario> ratbeing: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04135
  5. {02:45:44 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: arXiv Twitter
  6. {02:45:45 pm:} <`411> — "[1502.04135] Undecidability of the Spectral Gap (short version)"
  7. {02:46:44 pm:} <Impresario> (2015 finding of Godelian undecidability in Nature ((not just math)))
  8. {02:47:44 pm:} <ratbeing> Thanks, impressario
  9. {02:48:11 pm:} * ratbeing just about almost understands the abstract.
  10. {02:48:43 pm:} <ratbeing> Shows that abstract maths does have some relevance to the world we live in I suppose.
  11. {02:49:03 pm:} <Impresario> mmhm
  12. {02:49:05 pm:} <ratbeing> And maybe that something like Leibniz's God exists.
  13. {02:49:06 pm:} <Impresario> cool
  14. {02:49:24 pm:} <Impresario> "Our result implies that there exists no algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary model is gapped or gapless."
  15. {02:50:08 pm:} <Impresario> for now, it's proven unprovable; known to be unknowable; decided to be undecidable
  16. {02:50:26 pm:} <ratbeing> Ah right, Rumsfeldt would be proud.
  17. {02:50:39 pm:} <ratbeing> known unknowns and all that
  18. {02:50:40 pm:} <Impresario> heh, "unknown unknowns"
  19. {02:50:43 pm:} <ratbeing> hehe
  20. {02:50:48 pm:} <ratbeing> indeed
  21. {02:55:13 pm:} * Zanadu has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  22. {02:59:58 pm:} <Impresario> what he cites there is actually a pretty bad problem we have with much knowledge: you can call it unknown unknowns, you can call it prediction errors, i call it hidden variables; it's when you predict something, you could be accounting for everything known, but you can't really prove you're not accounting for missing factors: e.g we calculate we could make it to the neighboring galaxy, but people forget: we could be missing a whole
  23. {02:59:58 pm:} <Impresario> aspect we need to reason about, due to not experiencing it, due to misunderstanding it; & the real vicious part is, when you try to estimate how likely these hidden variables / prediction errors / unknown unknowns could change the outcome ((from our predicted one)), you're trying to appraise & assess what you don't know: are there 100 hidden variables? "Gee I don't know" - you can't know - it's like estimating the beauty of a blind
  24. {02:59:58 pm:} <Impresario> date: you can factor as much as you can in, but there can be so much more in play, you could feel as certain as you wanted, & wouldn't be able to justifiedly be certain of prediction - because there could exist unknown unknowns (hidden variables) - & being unknown, you do not know them, so cannot estimate how they will change the outcome
  25. {03:01:48 pm:} <ratbeing> Aye.
  26. {03:02:12 pm:} <ratbeing> And our own atmosphere is non-linear.
  27. {03:02:32 pm:} <Impresario> it's a really nasty problem - you can call it a bias - & many many many lesser academics fall victim to it. they predict it is safe, they say they're certain enough, then there's heart attacks; then the bridge collapses; then. . . .  many scientists have not got their head wrapped around prediction errors, so we see e.g new products 'certain enough to be safe' rolled out to the death or injury of consumers, because they misreasoned
  28. {03:02:32 pm:} <Impresario> about their certainty
  29. {03:02:51 pm:} <Impresario> brb
  30. {03:02:53 pm:} <ratbeing> Nobody can say what happens when you keep on pumping CO2 into it.
  31. {03:03:03 pm:} <Impresario> brb
  32. {03:03:07 pm:} <ratbeing> ok
  33. {03:03:47 pm:} <ratbeing> People in the Grauniad say that you should therefore adopt the precautionary principle.
  34. {03:04:07 pm:} <ratbeing> Whereas the Torygraph says, not proven, therefore business as usual.
  35. {03:04:25 pm:} <ratbeing> Keep on driving your 4x4 to the airport.
  36. {03:04:31 pm:} <ratbeing> but anyway
  37. {03:04:38 pm:} <Impresario> wouldn't be able to justifiedly be certain of the prediction, i meant.
  38. {03:11:04 pm:} * Zanadu (~Sadahara1@pool-68-132-132-232.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined
  39. {03:13:38 pm:} <Impresario> -- i've gotta make a phone call
  40. {03:16:42 pm:} * Moriarty (~moriarty@moriarty.users.undernet.org) has joined
  41. {03:29:09 pm:} <Impresario> one answer to this is we have gotten by before - 'crossed this bridge many times' - but as is obvious to most people, you really don't have "proof" a bridge won't collapse when you cross it - you can talk about appraisals, assessments; you can talk about statistics of similar bridges in similar places with similar use with... --but you can't have this abstract-proof level certainty of it, like you can that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n =
  42. {03:29:09 pm:} <Impresario> (n-1)^2 + n, or whatever. the possibilities are constrained in mathematics unlike (...knownly...) they are in Life
  43. {03:29:18 pm:} <Impresario> ok - i'm actually going to make that phone call now
  44. {03:29:59 pm:} <ratbeing> ok
  45. {03:31:22 pm:} <ratbeing> Did you know that if you carry that sum all the way to infinity, you get -1/12
  46. {03:31:25 pm:} <ratbeing> ???
  47. {03:31:28 pm:} <Impresario> heh heh
  48. {03:32:03 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
  49. {03:32:04 pm:} <`411> [YouTube] ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12 | Uploader: Numberphile | Uploaded: 2014-01-09 - 14:52:18 | Length: 7m 50s | Views: 7,492,219 | Comments: 14,581 | 85,862+ | 14,453-
  50. {03:32:04 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12 - YouTube
  51. {03:32:15 pm:} <ratbeing> really rigorous mathematics !!!
  52. {03:35:22 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA
  53. {03:35:23 pm:} <`411> [YouTube] Numberphile v. Math: the truth about 1+2+3+...=-1/12 | Uploader: Mathologer | Uploaded: 2018-01-13 - 14:10:17 | Length: 41m 44s | Views: 1,552,656 | Comments: 7,352 | 41,904+ | 3,941-
  54. {03:35:24 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: Numberphile v. Math: the truth about 1+2+3+...=-1/12 - YouTube
  55. {03:35:25 pm:} <Impresario> just wanted to say: the justsaid may point toward computation as prosthesis for reasoning, for some; but you have to balance simian flaw with technological power - "our technology has exceeded our humanity" Einstein once said re a-bombs - before you can assume computers will make all be good simply via the fact they compute...
  56. {03:35:36 pm:} <ratbeing> Does this guy not get the joke?
  57. {03:35:48 pm:} <ratbeing> He seems so serious.
  58. {03:35:51 pm:} <ratbeing> Maybe he does.
  59. {03:35:58 pm:} <ratbeing> I don't know.
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
Top