{02:34:31 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BM38UEGlIA
{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-
{02:34:32 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - In Our Time - YouTube
{02:45:43 pm:} <Impresario> ratbeing: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04135
{02:45:44 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: arXiv Twitter
{02:45:45 pm:} <`411> — "[1502.04135] Undecidability of the Spectral Gap (short version)"
{02:46:44 pm:} <Impresario> (2015 finding of Godelian undecidability in Nature ((not just math)))
{02:47:44 pm:} <ratbeing> Thanks, impressario
{02:48:11 pm:} * ratbeing just about almost understands the abstract.
{02:48:43 pm:} <ratbeing> Shows that abstract maths does have some relevance to the world we live in I suppose.
{02:49:03 pm:} <Impresario> mmhm
{02:49:05 pm:} <ratbeing> And maybe that something like Leibniz's God exists.
{02:49:06 pm:} <Impresario> cool
{02:49:24 pm:} <Impresario> "Our result implies that there exists no algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary model is gapped or gapless."
{02:50:08 pm:} <Impresario> for now, it's proven unprovable; known to be unknowable; decided to be undecidable
{02:50:26 pm:} <ratbeing> Ah right, Rumsfeldt would be proud.
{02:50:39 pm:} <ratbeing> known unknowns and all that
{02:50:40 pm:} <Impresario> heh, "unknown unknowns"
{02:50:43 pm:} <ratbeing> hehe
{02:50:48 pm:} <ratbeing> indeed
{02:55:13 pm:} * Zanadu has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
{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
{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
{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
{03:01:48 pm:} <ratbeing> Aye.
{03:02:12 pm:} <ratbeing> And our own atmosphere is non-linear.
{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
{03:02:32 pm:} <Impresario> about their certainty
{03:02:51 pm:} <Impresario> brb
{03:02:53 pm:} <ratbeing> Nobody can say what happens when you keep on pumping CO2 into it.
{03:03:03 pm:} <Impresario> brb
{03:03:07 pm:} <ratbeing> ok
{03:03:47 pm:} <ratbeing> People in the Grauniad say that you should therefore adopt the precautionary principle.
{03:04:07 pm:} <ratbeing> Whereas the Torygraph says, not proven, therefore business as usual.
{03:04:25 pm:} <ratbeing> Keep on driving your 4x4 to the airport.
{03:04:31 pm:} <ratbeing> but anyway
{03:04:38 pm:} <Impresario> wouldn't be able to justifiedly be certain of the prediction, i meant.
{03:11:04 pm:} * Zanadu (~Sadahara1@pool-68-132-132-232.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined
{03:13:38 pm:} <Impresario> -- i've gotta make a phone call
{03:16:42 pm:} * Moriarty (~moriarty@moriarty.users.undernet.org) has joined
{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 =
{03:29:09 pm:} <Impresario> (n-1)^2 + n, or whatever. the possibilities are constrained in mathematics unlike (...knownly...) they are in Life
{03:29:18 pm:} <Impresario> ok - i'm actually going to make that phone call now
{03:29:59 pm:} <ratbeing> ok
{03:31:22 pm:} <ratbeing> Did you know that if you carry that sum all the way to infinity, you get -1/12
{03:31:25 pm:} <ratbeing> ???
{03:31:28 pm:} <Impresario> heh heh
{03:32:03 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
{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-
{03:32:04 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12 - YouTube
{03:32:15 pm:} <ratbeing> really rigorous mathematics !!!
{03:35:22 pm:} <ratbeing> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA
{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-
{03:35:24 pm:} <JohnStar> Title: Numberphile v. Math: the truth about 1+2+3+...=-1/12 - YouTube
{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...
{03:35:36 pm:} <ratbeing> Does this guy not get the joke?
{03:35:48 pm:} <ratbeing> He seems so serious.
{03:35:51 pm:} <ratbeing> Maybe he does.
{03:35:58 pm:} <ratbeing> I don't know.