Agreed I think she's really smart and has some strong well thought out objections to many worlds. I would love to hear Sean respond to them as she has laid out exactly how it doesn't help solve some of the conundrums of quantum physics All most all scientific descriptions of reality have been shown to be approximations. I don't know why it would be different for quantum physics I mean I'm sure eventually it'll be shown that that's just an approximation of something deeper So not sure how that can be Ultimate Reality as Sean alludes to... or maybe better said why I would find that idea to be highly likely
32:50 "Actually, I'm writing that down" .... say that again Sean. I know that this feels like an entirely private venture, but the public should be supporting you much more. Thank you!
actually, Peter should talk to Disney. I'm sure, I'm not the first or last to think of this, but if you don't cash in on this, someone else will. Contribute it to a grant if nothing else.
Umm, is it just me or was this one just all over the place? I'm halfway through and I've no idea how they reached that point of conversation or where're they headed
Yeah man I totally agree! Did he ever get to the point of what it all adds up to and the utility and what different ways they can use this data I mean I haven't been listening that closely, but he's going on and on and I have no idea what he's even talking about. I mean I get that he's doing some sort of statistical analysis of the words being used in stories, but at the end of the day and what is it used for?
Interesting, thank you. Dodds and Carroll might enjoy a chat with Nobel winning economist Shiller of Yale whose recent book Narrative Economics explores the viral nature of stories. Shiller calls for a new form of social science toward consilience; it seems that Dodds is essentially working along this track.
You can sort stories into many different dimensions, and which ones you choose, and how many you choose, to sort them with will be based on your personality (brain type). I found his two dimensions pretty conservative to me. But I'm glad he found a categorization system that works well for him. My own system has 4-ish dimensions (polarities, really): 0. Why? Because the author exists. (Cogito ergo sum!) 1. When? past/non-fiction vs. future/fiction 2. How? familiar strategies vs. experimental strategies 3. Where? staying close to the self/home vs. exploring strange people/places 4. What's it doing? collecting/organizing vs. creating/innovating I tend to simplify them into the 4 basic paths that you can take to get to the second dimension of How? This breaks down to the learning process, which is also the stages of grief after a shock/surprise: anger/fight, bargaining/flight, depression/freeze, and finally acceptance/understanding that leads to healthy growth with meaning-making/flow. This fight, flight, freeze, and flow set of elements for a whole story can also be described as the loves, losses, dreams, and needs for achieving them that take us from the past to the present to potential future, and then actual attainment of the imagined future.
Thinking about his dimensions, I think his safety-danger might be my 2nd dimension of How? familiar vs. experimental. His personality type would think that familiar stuff is safe and novelty is dangerous (while I find familiarity boring, and experimental approaches healthy and fun). His weak vs. powerful is probably my 3rd dimension of Where? staying close to the self/home vs. exploring new people/places. If you stay home, your power is pretty small compared to those who expand their circles of connection/awareness. And he mentions the "science" books (mostly past stuff) vs. the fiction stuff (future) of my 1st dimension of When? So, maybe he does have the same categories that I do. Just with a different bias of what's most comfortable. Oh, and his extra dimension he mentions of structured vs. playful seems like it's probably my 4th dimension of What's it doing? collecting/organizing vs. creating/innovating. Though it could just be an internal character's focus on either the past/fact vs. future/fiction, which is my 1st dimension of When?
“The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' sounds cool, but makes any sense as theory? looking for some help, no patreon lineage unfortunately
This is perhaps a fantastic researcher; not an effective communicator. Poor Prof. Carroll did his best to guide him towards coherency but he never quite got there did he.
Would love to see an episode with Sabine Hossenfelder, a conversation between you two would be amazing.
countable infinity thumbs up.
Huh. I could have sworn he already did one. Searching his youtube page isn't bringing it up. I guess I imagined it.
I find Sabine close minded
@@ajosin I find her incomprehensible. And fairly negative, I guess. So that would go with closed minded, perhaps.
Agreed I think she's really smart and has some strong well thought out objections to many worlds. I would love to hear Sean respond to them as she has laid out exactly how it doesn't help solve some of the conundrums of quantum physics
All most all scientific descriptions of reality have been shown to be approximations. I don't know why it would be different for quantum physics
I mean I'm sure eventually it'll be shown that that's just an approximation of something deeper
So not sure how that can be Ultimate Reality as Sean alludes to... or maybe better said why I would find that idea to be highly likely
Anyone old enough to remember it reminds me of what could be the beginnings of the development of Psychohistory -- Issac Asimov's foundation series.
32:50 "Actually, I'm writing that down" .... say that again Sean. I know that this feels like an entirely private venture, but the public should be supporting you much more. Thank you!
actually, Peter should talk to Disney. I'm sure, I'm not the first or last to think of this, but if you don't cash in on this, someone else will. Contribute it to a grant if nothing else.
Umm, is it just me or was this one just all over the place? I'm halfway through and I've no idea how they reached that point of conversation or where're they headed
Yeah man I totally agree! Did he ever get to the point of what it all adds up to and the utility and what different ways they can use this data
I mean I haven't been listening that closely, but he's going on and on and I have no idea what he's even talking about. I mean I get that he's doing some sort of statistical analysis of the words being used in stories, but at the end of the day and what is it used for?
Interesting, thank you. Dodds and Carroll might enjoy a chat with Nobel winning economist Shiller of Yale whose recent book Narrative Economics explores the viral nature of stories. Shiller calls for a new form of social science toward consilience; it seems that Dodds is essentially working along this track.
You can sort stories into many different dimensions, and which ones you choose, and how many you choose, to sort them with will be based on your personality (brain type). I found his two dimensions pretty conservative to me. But I'm glad he found a categorization system that works well for him. My own system has 4-ish dimensions (polarities, really):
0. Why? Because the author exists. (Cogito ergo sum!)
1. When? past/non-fiction vs. future/fiction
2. How? familiar strategies vs. experimental strategies
3. Where? staying close to the self/home vs. exploring strange people/places
4. What's it doing? collecting/organizing vs. creating/innovating
I tend to simplify them into the 4 basic paths that you can take to get to the second dimension of How? This breaks down to the learning process, which is also the stages of grief after a shock/surprise: anger/fight, bargaining/flight, depression/freeze, and finally acceptance/understanding that leads to healthy growth with meaning-making/flow. This fight, flight, freeze, and flow set of elements for a whole story can also be described as the loves, losses, dreams, and needs for achieving them that take us from the past to the present to potential future, and then actual attainment of the imagined future.
Thinking about his dimensions, I think his safety-danger might be my 2nd dimension of How? familiar vs. experimental. His personality type would think that familiar stuff is safe and novelty is dangerous (while I find familiarity boring, and experimental approaches healthy and fun). His weak vs. powerful is probably my 3rd dimension of Where? staying close to the self/home vs. exploring new people/places. If you stay home, your power is pretty small compared to those who expand their circles of connection/awareness. And he mentions the "science" books (mostly past stuff) vs. the fiction stuff (future) of my 1st dimension of When? So, maybe he does have the same categories that I do. Just with a different bias of what's most comfortable. Oh, and his extra dimension he mentions of structured vs. playful seems like it's probably my 4th dimension of What's it doing? collecting/organizing vs. creating/innovating. Though it could just be an internal character's focus on either the past/fact vs. future/fiction, which is my 1st dimension of When?
1:08:00 - Sounds like quantifiable Memetic Theory. :)
“The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' sounds cool, but makes any sense as theory? looking for some help, no patreon lineage unfortunately
43:00
Happiness = safety + power.
Well alright then.
This is perhaps a fantastic researcher; not an effective communicator. Poor Prof. Carroll did his best to guide him towards coherency but he never quite got there did he.
cool video
Uggs lol. The answer to "do I wear ugg boots" should always be no
Sorry....way too disjointed for me to stay.
Louvai ao Senhor, porque é bom;
pois a sua benignidade dura perpetuamente.
1 Crônicas 16:34