It doesn’t, we’re just really good at identifying the differences.

Also so much of how we talk about CS/software dev is cribbed directly from, not just real engineering, but also philosophy. Abstraction, concretisation, instantiation, etc.

I believe individuals choose the worldview that comforts/benefits one the most, and that is why programmers often think in discrete units. It helps them identify issues and handle them well. Is there a reason to introduce discomfort, when the worldview works quite well?

Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like “it needs to pop more” or “this is good, but we need it to feel more modern”.

So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.

they would also get that if they learned more math. eventually they tell you that a lot of concrete rules are more like conventions and assumptions that we have collectively decided are “reasonable”. don’t get me wrong, those conventions are still extremely useful. calculus, for example, has made a lot of problems way easier to solve. but it’s not like moses came down from the mountain with the fundamental theorem of calculus etched in stone. you still need to assume things in order to be able to do calculus, and the ways in which calculus is taught and understood has changed a decent amount over the years (infinitesimals to limits, riemann sums to measures, the introduction of differential forms, etc)

Yep, and that goes for really nebulous things like relationships and mental health too, not just the physical world.

This sentence hit me:

seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules

I wonder how many past situations I could remember where I had anxiety and panic over not knowing the rules to follow in a situation. But that’s like asking the wrong question if the reality is that there are no rules, and you need more of a guiding philosophy or purpose than a rule book. For me, I think you do what you can to make the unique experience of life things better for yourself and others. We nerds do have a tendency to focus on “number go up” which has its benefits, but has to be in moderation as with everything else.

I got into building agents for an overpowered discord bot. I leard a lot about my own through process because the research papers were too hinged to be fun.

I mean this just means that it is not the objects that have those traits, it is the relation between the object and the human sensory organs that do. This is not really anti rules, just anti overly primitive rules.

It’s a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals. Everything the body needs.

For the unaware, this is a Quote from The Matrix, in which the character muses about how the fake reality which is the matrix might be inconsistent with actual reality but the people would never know the difference. He then goes on to explain that, to him, the steak is delicious, so he does not care.

There’s also the possibility of Boltzmann brain hallucinating things, but since there is no way to prove or disprove it, that’s still not a reason to be an asshole

Thank you.

But you’re not real!

guess that’s just a wishful thinking

Philosophers: It is what it is.

Physicians: We need to be a bit more specific than that. Can we measure it?

I think your question was spot on. They have more cones but they seem worse. They also lack our ability to process the stimuli into a rich tapestry of color.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24458639/

Not sure if there’s more current info though.

Just the span of wavelengths isn’t the only thing that’s important, the spectral resolution is also important. For example, theoretically with 6 different cones we would be able to tell the difference between the mixture of red and green wavelengths vs only seeing yellow wavelengths.

Or the mixture of blue and red wavelengths vs violet wavelengths, which just happen to be at the furthest possible point from the red wavelengths. Human color perception is strange.

Fancy words for “there’s something and there’s nothing”. So, yes.

The term “atom” at that point was a placeholder, not a specific measurable phenomenon.

I have come to think of it as all being probability fields.

When studying a particle, one cannot know both the energy and position of that particle with certainty (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). When chemists think about the 3d “structure” of atoms and molecules, they represent the nucleus as a tiny little ball and the electrons as bubbles of probability: .

The nucleus itself is in constant motion as well, and compared to the size of the actual protons and neutrons, there is much more empty space - kind of like planets in a solar system. And each of these protons/neutrons is composed of tiny particles called quarks, which again are in constant motion and thus make up probability fields that we call protons and neutrons.

Yes, it’s where Janets go when they’ve not been summoned.

And that one time when she had to hide those people.

Well, doesn’t that change everything! How disappointing. I guess that’s why they need so many receptor types, eh. They are just brute-forcing colors at this point.

You have a source for this though? I’d love to read about it and learn more.

Surely they could see some color half as strong in the same place as another? Where does the difference come from?

I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality.

Is there? How do you determine whether the machine doing the measurements is real?

The lights flickered when I read this. I think that means I’m the real one and they upped my sedative to keep me stuck here. Oh well. Maybe I’ll get fun dreams out of it tonight, at least.

Wake up, Link!

We gotta preserve our curiosity and childish naivite. Imagine yourself a professor sharing a beauty of math – the good ones are always as excited to explain it, as the first time they’ve felt it ^^