If everything has already been thought of, how would AI (or aliens) change it?

So, you may think that advanced set theory is too "hard" to read, but sorry, it is a walk in the park compared to what we do, — alcontali

You're smart in one area and a delusional bullshit artist when you talk about things you clearly know nothing about. You got busted. Give it a rest. You're a buzzword jockey utterly lacking in self-awareness. Who do you think you're fooling?

You're smart in one area and a delusional bullshit artist when you talk to me. You got busted. Give it a rest. — fishfry

Is it about the uncanny similarity I mentioned between the size of finite calculation fields (prime powers only), yielding gaps in between, and the size of infinite calculation fields (also prime powers), and also with gaps in between (the continuum hypothesis)?

Why would that similarity be delusional bullshit? I have never said that I have proved anything about it.

You know, like so many people in the academia, whom Nassim Nicholas Taleb liberally calls IYI ("Intellectual Yet Idiot"), you seem to have an overly strong attachment to useless credentialism, that does not impress anybody who works in technology.

Being smarter than anybody else, means that you can do more. It does not mean: Being good at looking for things you disagree with in order to disparage other people. The problem is, of course, that there is absolutely no other benchmark for merit in the academia besides the ridiculous pieces of paper and citations that they distribute to each other.

Even if I think that you made a mistake somewhere -- probably debatable -- I will not easily call you "delusional" for it. It is rather your irresistible desire to put other people down, that is so stupid.

Is it maybe because elbowing your way through life is such an important requirement in your professional environment? Is putting down others more effective with a view on getting ahead, than doing something remarkable yourself? In that case, I do understand you.

Myself, I prefer working in an environment where people are free to develop ideas and to make mistakes without having to deal with that kind of obnoxious negativity.

Taleb and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes have traded personal attacks, particularly after Taleb's paper with Espen Haug on why nobody used the Black–Scholes–Merton formula. — alcontali

You have referenced Taleb many times. I admit, having not read his books, I had always seen him as a charlatan like Malcolm Gladwell. You've convinced me to give him a try. I've downloaded one of his books, "Antifragile" from the library. I'll get back to you with my impressions.

They would be smarter?

Maybe. Maybe with more cognition, some of the stuff that stumps us may be answered. Although the problem would then be (from the point of view of the superior intellect) if you have the right answer, it may be impossible to explain it to simpletons like us. It may just be something like an A.I. telling us: "yes, you have free will, and no, we can't dumb it down that much. Just take our word for it. Also, the universe is conscious."

There was a scene in a movie made from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, where a couple finds themselves in a bubble/cage in the middle of space. They are in a large bed. The aliens ask them, "Have you mated yet?" We don't know why the aliens care whether they have mated or not, but apparently they are scientifically oriented aliens.

The humans protest that they have free will and may or may not mate, depending on their wishes.

The aliens respond that they have studied millions of sentient cultures in the universe, and only on earth is anyone concerned about "free will".

POINT OF STORY IN THIS THREAD:

MAYBE what the aliens will tell us is that some of our philosophical concerns are nothing more than oddball hangups. Being concerned about free will and the meaning of the universe strikes me as hang ups. For one thing, we probably can not determine whether we have complete free will or are completely determined. And we can not determine what the meaning of the universe is, either. If we want the universe to have a meaning, then just fucking get on with it and give the universe whatever meaning we think it should have -- or no meaning at all.

From what I can tell, we are a mix of determinism and freely chosen acts. And if we are totally determined, then it still feels like free will -- so what difference does it make?

And if we are totally determined, then it still feels like free will -- so what difference does it make? — Bitter Crank

It might make a difference if it's the aliens making us feel like we have free will while they totally determine our actions. Like burning fossil fuels and rainforests to terraform the climate for their arrival.

As Lincoln wrote - of the average Joes, for the average Joes, and by the average Joes. — T Clark

Besides Lincoln saying so, why? Average Joes are boring people who fail to see the beauty of philosophy, and appealing to them is what is wrong with contemporary philosophy. Asking why Gettier matters is a fundamentally erraneous question - if you want work to be productive or ideas to have practical value, look at sciences. None of that is philosophers' job or purpose. Philosophy is beautiful, it's art, and no more than from a blooming flower do we need to ask from philosophy how it makes itself useful.

25 years ago, I was prepared to go into philosophy graduate school. A philo of science professor talked me out of it. His argument was essentially: all the good stuff has already been thought of. You'll spend your days writing papers on meaningless trivialities until you get tenure.

I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives — RogueAI

I scanned responses to this briefly and might have missed if someone had mentioned this: Around the turn of the century (1900) a patent office worker made the comment that he thought he'd be out of work soon because it seemed like everything that was ever going to be invented had already been invented. Even if this story is just a myth I think it makes a good point about nearsighted thinking.

Average Joes are boring people who fail to see the beauty of philosophy, and appealing to them is what is wrong with contemporary philosophy. — BlueBanana

I don't know if you're from the US. If so, this arrogant attitude is one of the reasons Donald Trump is president. Such contempt. It's also one of the reasons people laugh at philosophy. There was a thread recently that discussed that issue - "Bias against philosophy in scientific circles/forums." So, you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Also, before I became an engineer, I worked for a living doing skilled and unskilled manual labor. I also work with construction workers as part of my present job. I don't find them boring at all. We don't discuss philosophy much, but we do discuss the best way to complete the work and how I might want to change my designs in the future to avoid problems we may be having. A lot of them are really smart and competent. In order for that to work, I need to show them respect. When I do, they show it to me too.

if you want work to be productive or ideas to have practical value, look at sciences. None of that is philosophers' job or purpose. — BlueBanana

That says it all.

just fucking get on with it — Bitter Crank

I was at the YMCA today. One of the weight lifters, tired and sweaty, had a t-shirt that said - "Suck it up and get on with it." He didn't know he was a philosopher.

I'm with both of you.

I scanned responses to this briefly and might have missed if someone had mentioned this: Around the turn of the century (1900) a patent office worker made the comment that he thought he'd be out of work soon because it seemed like everything that was ever going to be invented had already been invented. Even if this story is just a myth I think it makes a good point about nearsighted thinking. — SteveKlinko

At about the same time a scientist, I think it was Lord Kelvin, said that the enterprise of science had reached a conclusion. All that was left was to straighten the drapes and polish the floor. On the other hand, I don't see that we've made much progress on metaphysics since Aristotle and Plato. Epistemology, e.g. the philosophy of science, has progressed mightily. I think it's fair to say that social philosophy has also.

Ok, "boring" was a poor choice of a word, I only meant that from the viewpoint of philosophy. Nevertheless, my point stands. Most people don't care about philosophy, and that is not a problem. It's not problematic for philosophy, and it doesn't bother people who don't care about it. So why try to make it interesting for that group of people? Why change it to cater for people that don't care?

It's also one of the reasons people laugh at philosophy. — T Clark

That is a problem of those people. There will always be people who belittle the interests and passions of other people, and the proper response is to not let them get into your head. People have laughed at me for my interest in mathematics, my taste in music, my sense of humour, and many other things, but I enjoy those things so I don't need others to, and the same goes for analyzing whether the JTB theory models knowledge and how accurately it does so.

Cosmology is going through a similar crisis. It seems that the universe might be unnatural, might be part of an infinite multiverse, and if that's the case, there's not a whole lot we can do with that. There are also worries about physics: if the energies required to advance particle physics can only be achieved in colliders the size of the solar system, we're not going to see anything new from that branch of science for a long time.

Taleb and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes have traded personal attacks, particularly after Taleb's paper with Espen Haug on why nobody used the Black–Scholes–Merton formula.
— alcontali

You have referenced Taleb many times. I admit, having not read his books, I had always seen him as a charlatan like Malcolm Gladwell. You've convinced me to give him a try. I've downloaded one of his books, "Antifragile" from the library. I'll get back to you with my impressions. — T Clark

I started reading "Antifragile" and got about 25% through before I gave up. If you look at the three star reviews in Amazon, the mostly say the same thing - Taleb has some good ideas but they are covered over with six coats of smarty pants self-aggrandizement, name dropping, and insults and character attacks on people who disagree with him. Worse, his ideas are presented in a vague and confusing manner overlain with references to Greek myths and other cultural features that don't seem to have much to do with his point, which it is often hard to get to. Case in point - a table comparing aspects of what he calls fragile, robust, and antifragile systems. As many of the Amazon reviews noted, it seems like he could present his ideas in a 10-page article.

So, does that 10-page article exist? I'd like to give his ideas a fair chance. It seems like he has something to offer.

As many of the Amazon reviews noted, it seems like he could present his ideas in a 10-page article. — T Clark

I had the same experience with attempting to read Antifragile. It's as if he assumes that the reader is an idiot that doesn't understand the concept from a simple explanation, so he spends ages on what the word "antifragile" means and why it's different from "robust". However, it seems there are some interesting ideas in the latter half of the book so getting back to it is on my reading list.