Comments on: The wrongness singularity http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:30:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15769 Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:38:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15769 [...] The Wrongness Singularity [...] […] The Wrongness Singularity […]

]]> By: Greatist post ever - just how wong can a pundnt be? « High Quality Noise http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15768 Greatist post ever - just how wong can a pundnt be? « High Quality Noise Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:50:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15768 [...] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Nickelodeon on riot duty The cultural ramifications of My Humps» [...] […] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Nickelodeon on riot duty The cultural ramifications of My Humps» […]

]]> By: Qubit http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15767 Qubit Tue, 16 May 2006 22:12:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15767 Who's We? Here in the UK we can't even use a hose pipe, never mind finding enough water to run an oil field! When you can't even get water into somebodys back garden, then you have no chance! No chance! Of getting water, to run all the oil fields, in a country where there is non. To run all the oil pumps, at full speed, in a country, you just invaded. Which has very little water, but needs loads of it. Would mean you just passed the Event Horizon! Who’s We? Here in the UK we can’t even use a hose pipe, never mind finding enough water to run an oil field!
When you can’t even get water into somebodys back garden, then you have no chance! No chance! Of getting water, to run all the oil fields, in a country where there is non.
To run all the oil pumps, at full speed, in a country, you just invaded. Which has very little water, but needs loads of it. Would mean you just passed the Event Horizon!

]]> By: JGG http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15684 JGG Mon, 15 May 2006 21:27:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15684 Mr. Reynolds is clearly an ignoramus. As far as I can tell. being a Canadian, Canada is both a liberal democracy and a net exporter of oil, mostly to the United States. Now, his believability quotient has just plummeted to below zero, putting him in a black hole. Unless of course, his definition of liberal democracy is Adolf's Germany which I'm sure as a citizen of the USA he doesn't have. Another liberal democracy that exports oil, and is second to Canada as a supplier to the USA is Venezuela, which is both liberal and democratic, Bush, Robertson et alia to the contrary. A third liberal democracy that exports oil is Peru. Gee, I don't know if there's a black holebig enough for this guy. Mr. Reynolds is clearly an ignoramus. As far as I can tell. being a Canadian, Canada is both a liberal democracy and a net exporter of oil, mostly to the United States. Now, his believability quotient has just plummeted to below zero, putting him in a black hole. Unless of course, his definition of liberal democracy is Adolf’s Germany which I’m sure as a citizen of the USA he doesn’t have. Another liberal democracy that exports oil, and is second to Canada as a supplier to the USA is Venezuela, which is both liberal and democratic, Bush, Robertson et alia to the contrary. A third liberal democracy that exports oil is Peru. Gee, I don’t know if there’s a black holebig enough for this guy.

]]> By: The Swamp » Harder, Better, Faster, Wronger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15766 The Swamp » Harder, Better, Faster, Wronger Thu, 11 May 2006 13:46:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15766 [...] From Cosmic Variance, on Glenn Reynolds reaching a new state of wrongness: So in fact, Reynolds has managed to fit five units of wrongness into only four declarative statements! This is the hackular equivalent of crossing the Chandrasekhar Limit, at which point your blog cannot help but collapse in on itself. Although I disagree with the methodology (introducing a new clause and attaching wrongness to it without including it with the original statements), it is top notch physics humour. [...] […] From Cosmic Variance, on Glenn Reynolds reaching a new state of wrongness: So in fact, Reynolds has managed to fit five units of wrongness into only four declarative statements! This is the hackular equivalent of crossing the Chandrasekhar Limit, at which point your blog cannot help but collapse in on itself. Although I disagree with the methodology (introducing a new clause and attaching wrongness to it without including it with the original statements), it is top notch physics humour. […]

]]> By: Hawkeye http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15765 Hawkeye Thu, 11 May 2006 08:23:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15765 Of course, the fact that you don't know what it means to beg the question, nor does Tim Lambert, suggests a wrongness singularity all your own. Of course, the fact that you don’t know what it means to beg the question, nor does Tim Lambert, suggests a wrongness singularity all your own.

]]> By: Torbjörn Larsson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15764 Torbjörn Larsson Tue, 09 May 2006 22:40:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15764 Öööhhh... I meant "tentiveness marker". Döh! Öööhhh… I meant “tentiveness marker”. Döh!

]]> By: Torbjörn Larsson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15763 Torbjörn Larsson Tue, 09 May 2006 22:38:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15763 Moshe: Very funny! One must remember to let go of the tail of the tiger at times. W: "Torbjööörn" This is double wrongness. The ö sound (which english speakers don't have) is also a tentative marker, akin to u in "Uuuuhhhh... Duuuhhh..." ie we say "Ööööhhh... Döööhhh...", so this spelling is both insulting and wrongly spelled. It is an example of a bozon. ""I think that if the cost of a commodity lowers all benefits." Wha? I'm missing something here; how does a drop in the price of a commodity, e.g. cotton, benefit all, e.g. everybody, including the cotton farmers?" I don't cotton much to economics, but I believe this would be the effect if the cost of the raw resource dropped. (Ie not the farmers gain.) Moshe:

Very funny! One must remember to let go of the tail of the tiger at times.

W:
“Torbjööörn”

This is double wrongness. The ö sound (which english speakers don’t have) is also a tentative marker, akin to u in “Uuuuhhhh… Duuuhhh…” ie we say “Ööööhhh… Döööhhh…”, so this spelling is both insulting and wrongly spelled. It is an example of a bozon.

“”I think that if the cost of a commodity lowers all benefits.”

Wha? I’m missing something here; how does a drop in the price of a commodity, e.g. cotton, benefit all, e.g. everybody, including the cotton farmers?”

I don’t cotton much to economics, but I believe this would be the effect if the cost of the raw resource dropped. (Ie not the farmers gain.)

]]> By: Mike http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15762 Mike Tue, 09 May 2006 18:57:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15762 This reminds me, years ago I thought of a formula for the speed of thought, basically, that the speed of thought was equal to the speed of light divided by the density of the brain in question. As we can see from the Perfesser's density, he is rapidly approaching the big ZERO. This reminds me, years ago I thought of a formula for the speed of thought, basically, that the speed of thought was equal to the speed of light divided by the density of the brain in question. As we can see from the Perfesser’s density, he is rapidly approaching the big ZERO.

]]> By: progdem http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15761 progdem Tue, 09 May 2006 18:54:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/05/the-wrongness-singularity/#comment-15761 A reply to #36 I believe. There are material conditionals (the truth conditions of which you stated) and there are counterfactuals. Counterfactuals are what we mostly use in English, and they are what are used in predictions. The standard semantics for them says that they are false iff at the nearest possible world where the antecedent is true the consequent false. You don't actually have to believe in different actual universes for this to work, but it can help in ways. It is odd to use simple propositional logic to come up with weird claims about the state of a prediction, since predictions, and all other counterfactuals were taken for awhile to be proof that the material conditional of propositional logic did not describe the 'if...then' of natural English, and so did not apply to much of any discourse. See David Lewis and Robert Stalnaker for books and articles which are way above my head but set out the semantics for these conditionals. Read correctly, as a counterfactual and not a material conditional, what Reynolds says is false, because the world would have to be very different than it is for his prediction to be borne out. The less like our world some possible world is, the farther away it is, so at the nearest possible world where the antecedent is true, the consequent is almost certainly false. A reply to #36 I believe. There are material conditionals (the truth conditions of which you stated) and there are counterfactuals. Counterfactuals are what we mostly use in English, and they are what are used in predictions. The standard semantics for them says that they are false iff at the nearest possible world where the antecedent is true the consequent false. You don’t actually have to believe in different actual universes for this to work, but it can help in ways. It is odd to use simple propositional logic to come up with weird claims about the state of a prediction, since predictions, and all other counterfactuals were taken for awhile to be proof that the material conditional of propositional logic did not describe the ‘if…then’ of natural English, and so did not apply to much of any discourse. See David Lewis and Robert Stalnaker for books and articles which are way above my head but set out the semantics for these conditionals.

Read correctly, as a counterfactual and not a material conditional, what Reynolds says is false, because the world would have to be very different than it is for his prediction to be borne out. The less like our world some possible world is, the farther away it is, so at the nearest possible world where the antecedent is true, the consequent is almost certainly false.

]]>