Author: David Veksler
-
Us and them
Human beings naturally group people into those we identify with and “others.” We understand and empathize with “our” kind of people, but simplify others into stereotyped models. We treat our family, school, city, country, race, sport team, political or sexual identity, or whatever with various degrees of familiarity. And then perhaps we travel to another…
-
On the ambiguity of words
Words are a very imperfect means of conveying our thoughts. The original idea is distorted by a vague and stereotyped vocabulary, ambiguous grammar and meaning. And then it is distorted again by the different definitions and mental models of the recipient. Meaning is in people. Words are very imperfect symbols for communicating an idea. When…
-
As I grow older, I wonder if I am becoming more wise or senile. When I was younger, my worldview changed radically every day, but my position at any given time always seemed clear and binary. Now, I rarely discard any idea entirely, but gradually layer my worldview with more layers of complexity and nuance.…
-
Some speculation on the Simulation Argument
If you haven’t read Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument, read it first. I’ll wait. Done? Now, for some unfounded speculation: 1) How would you trick the scientists? Nick proposes two ways to fake the environmental details of the simulation: 1) calculate the details on-demand and 2) mess with the agent’s minds to hide glitches. To me,…
-
expression versus communication
It is far easier to express oneself than to communicate. You can express yourself to a rock just as well as to a human being. But to communicate, you must understand how your words will be processed by another mind. You must estimate their level of knowledge, their potential for misunderstanding, their emotional response to…
-
chance
There is no such thing as “chance” or “randomness” in nature. Chance is just what we say when we don’t know why. There is only causality.
-
The double standard of creationism
Let’s consider the double standard posed by Creationists. They insist that we must see something directly for it to exist. Since we did not see the origin of the universe (actually we can still see it today, but never mind that), the formation of the earth, or of life, they insist that we cannot know…
-
On infinite causal chains
I wrote a One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument in 2007, but looking back, I would put it simply as: Infinities do not actually exist. Each specific set of entities is discrete. But the causal chain itself is not an existent. It is the set of all entities that have ever existed. That is a theoretical…
-
On stardust & entropy
Stellar nucleosynthesis is entropic because the proton-proton reaction radiates 0.7% of the original mass as 26.73 MeV energy. Additional reactions produce heavier elements until finally supernova nucleosynthesis produces everything up to uranium in the last few seconds of a star’s life. We can calculate the entropy cost of the elements to create planets and life…
-
We are informational beings in the eternal now
What are we? What sets us apart from the universe? We believe that we exist in limited time and space. We believe that we are defined by hereditary and environmental influences, leaving room for only a nebulous core of individuality. There is some truth in this perspective. But there is more. What is time? The…