In fact, some hypotheticals are interesting _mostly_ in the way that they contradict reality. Pointing out a different intuition if “nobody will ever know” than “you’ll know, and others probably won’t automatically know, but there’s a possibility with sufficient advances in forensics” is interesting and I’d be happy to play. Simply taking a result from a “nobody will ever know, and you know that with certainty” and trying to apply it to the real world is something I’d object to.
I think we could have an interesting and/or useful discussion about the distinction between interesting and useful for known-to-be-impossible (which is what “unrealistic” means, right?) topics.
My claim: For purposes of this conversation (trying to determine whether all, some, or no abstract hypotheticals can be validly rejected by showing that they’re unreal), we’re ALREADY not talking about something other than reality. And for unreal things, “interesting” and “useful” are really hard to distinguish.
“Useful” is a prediction. “X is useful” means that you expect to derive some utility from X in the future (or right now). And then if you have an explanation, in what way exactly X is going to give you some non-trivial utility, you may be able to convince someone that X really is useful.
“Interesting” is the feeling of curiosity, it is entirely subjective and requires no explanations. You are free to be interested in whatever you want. You can even be interested, exclusively, in useless things (to the extent that anything is really useless).
My internal evaluation of internet discussions is much less binary than this. My curiosity tends toward things that I may get some utility from, and much of the utility is in the form of enjoyment of exploration and discussion.
There are some cases where there’s more direct utility in terms of behavioral changes I can apply, but almost never on the topic at hand (abstract unrealistic hypotheticals).
In fact, some hypotheticals are interesting _mostly_ in the way that they contradict reality. Pointing out a different intuition if “nobody will ever know” than “you’ll know, and others probably won’t automatically know, but there’s a possibility with sufficient advances in forensics” is interesting and I’d be happy to play. Simply taking a result from a “nobody will ever know, and you know that with certainty” and trying to apply it to the real world is something I’d object to.
You can be interested in whatever you want, but that’s different from that thing being important or useful (except for its use in entertaining you).
I think we could have an interesting and/or useful discussion about the distinction between interesting and useful for known-to-be-impossible (which is what “unrealistic” means, right?) topics.
My claim: For purposes of this conversation (trying to determine whether all, some, or no abstract hypotheticals can be validly rejected by showing that they’re unreal), we’re ALREADY not talking about something other than reality. And for unreal things, “interesting” and “useful” are really hard to distinguish.
“Useful” is a prediction. “X is useful” means that you expect to derive some utility from X in the future (or right now). And then if you have an explanation, in what way exactly X is going to give you some non-trivial utility, you may be able to convince someone that X really is useful.
“Interesting” is the feeling of curiosity, it is entirely subjective and requires no explanations. You are free to be interested in whatever you want. You can even be interested, exclusively, in useless things (to the extent that anything is really useless).
My internal evaluation of internet discussions is much less binary than this. My curiosity tends toward things that I may get some utility from, and much of the utility is in the form of enjoyment of exploration and discussion.
There are some cases where there’s more direct utility in terms of behavioral changes I can apply, but almost never on the topic at hand (abstract unrealistic hypotheticals).