Zelalem Mekonnen
@zelalem-mekonnen·Member since March 2025
Activity
#2393·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 18 days agoFinding problems that a knowledge addresses is a form of new knowledge.
Maybe not. Figured that out as I was typing. The knowledge isn't new.
At the same time, there is a notion that I want to address that flows from fallibilism, and the reason decentralized 'things' tend to be more truth seeking. Even though a given knowledge has solved problems we haven't yet discovered, we still got that solution by solving a problem we encountered, and we can't solve problems we haven't encountered. When we try to solve a problem, we might find out that we've already solved it, but that only happens after we have looked at the problem.
#2388·Dennis Hackethal revised 18 days agoWe can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet.
Some theories have enough reach to solve problems we haven’t encountered or even considered yet. I would just remove this sentence.
Finding problems that a knowledge addresses is a form of new knowledge.
Maybe not. Figured that out as I was typing. The knowledge isn't new.
#2382·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoKnowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them.
Remove ‘therefore’
I think the 'therefore' means that the following point is a direct result of the preceding claim.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
Nope, I meant it in a sort of poetic way. "Obviously true" vs "Obviously obvious"??
Bitcoin is backed by POW or computational work or encryption.
Bitcoin is backed by POW or computational work or encryption.
#2369·Benjamin Davies revised 18 days agoBitcoin (and by extension Zcash) does not solve fiat. A key problem of fiat is that it isn’t backed by anything. Bitcoin isn’t backed my anything, and as far as I know, neither is Zcash.
Bitcoin is backed by POW or computational work or encryption.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We can't solve a problem we haven't encountered yet. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
It might worth stating that the aim of Veritula, along with the fallibilism philosophy, is that progress is both desirable ant attainable, and the way to get to progress is thru rational means. This means end to mysticism, supernatural and all other ideas that have an implicit underlying sentiment that a given thing is beyond our understanding.
It might be worth stating that the aim of Veritula, in conjunction with the fallibilism philosophy, is that progress is both desirable and attainable, and the way to achieve progress is through rational means. This means an end to mysticism, the supernatural, and all other ideas that have an implicit underlying sentiment that a given thing is beyond our understanding.
#2140·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoDecision-Making on Veritula
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
It might worth stating that the aim of Veritula, along with the fallibilism philosophy, is that progress is both desirable ant attainable, and the way to get to progress is thru rational means. This means end to mysticism, supernatural and all other ideas that have an implicit underlying sentiment that a given thing is beyond our understanding.
We discuss David Deutsch’s first book, The Fabric of Reality.
#1970·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoThe mere idea ‘continue living in city X’ may have pending criticisms. But so might the idea ‘leave X’. Maybe leaving is too expensive right now, or you’d have to find a new job and you like your job more than you want to leave, etc. In which case there could be a third idea: ‘At some point I’d like to leave X, but for right now that’s too expensive and too cumbersome, so staying in X for another year is fine.’ And that idea may not have any pending criticisms.
Does that make sense?
It does. But wouldn't that explain away the problem itself? I guess understanding and moving the problem into the future where I might be better suited to solve it is a good idea. So now I am acting on an explanation that solves the problem tentatively.
#1966·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoVeritula uses a serif font …
Upon reflection, that doesn’t matter. The letters J and I aren’t difficult to tell apart in sans-serif fonts, either.
Right, I was just replying from my phone, which I should not have done, as it is easy to make mistakes like that.
The current city J live in. I have outstanding criticisms about it. But J still live here.
The current city I live in. I have outstanding criticisms about it. But I still live here.
#1960·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoI don’t think that solves it because one shouldn’t act on a problematic idea either. And falseness can still be the reason an idea is problematic in the first place.
So, please give an example.
The current city J live in. I have outstanding criticisms about it. But J still live here.
#1937·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoCan you give an example of a flawed idea you think is true and want to act on?
PS: You forgot to @mention me. Again, if you want me to get notified, check the section that says ‘Replying to’ above the textarea when you write the comment. If it doesn’t list me, @mention me.
The reframing of an idea with criticism being problematic instead of false solves this. Because now I’m not acting based on a false idea but a problematic idea.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticism. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered problematic until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we would seek to resolve the problems within the idea before we act on it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
#1938·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago… we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticism.
In #1926, I suggested changing it to “we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticisms”, plural. You changed it to singular “criticism”.
You presumably typed this passage manually instead of copy/pasting. I believe you previously stated a preference for manual typing so as to better process what you type.
I don’t think you made this change on purpose. I’m guessing it was an error.
If you’re going to type manually, you should double check to make sure it’s exactly the same, eg using
cmd + f.Or you could type it manually, then erase, then paste. Manual typing is error prone. Just copy/paste. Or maybe you did copy/paste but you didn’t include the ‘s’ in the selection. Either way, there are errors for you to correct here.
I’m not marking this a criticism because I think your change it still grammatically correct. I’m pointing out a potential source of future errors.
I started with looking it up, whether to include the ‘s’ in ‘criticism’ to find that it didn’t matter much.
#1898·Zelalem Mekonnen, about 2 months agoWhat if, at that time, the best idea one has is the false idea?
Say you have an idea, that you take to be true, but at the same time, you understand that that idea has flaws, you haven't come up with a better idea yet, so you act based on this idea.
I guess that's where figuring that out before acting comes in.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticism. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. When it has received criticism and until the current criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. When it has received criticism and until all outstanding criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.
@dennis-hackethal Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.
#1902·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoYou’ve since made the change to “a few changes” (as of #1894) but I think that change was premature.
Don’t make changes you don’t understand. Take questions literally and answer them.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Difference-Between-Few-and-A-Few-
Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.