Uncountably many is the correct answer, and yet it’s one of the down-voted posts. In another thread, my posts were also down-voted, despite their well-reasoned bases.
Personally, I think the voting system is corrupt, and – especially given that one can create an account, get a few votes, and start wreaking havoc with the presumed perception of posts – LW will only be more wrong than anything I might imagine. Is LW supposed to be a popularity contest, where gang affiliation is measured in the “karma” one has gained by not stepping on the toes of those who might down-vote (whatever that is supposed to suggest; one guesses 1= “yay” and −1=”boo”) something they either dislike or don’t comprehend (and don’t want to admit they don’t comprehend)? If so, I’m already counting the days I continue “participating”.
The measure of a post should consist in its merits, but the way LW invites censors, I hardly think the improvement of the “art of human rationality” will manifest. After all, an excellent exercise of rational thought is to show in what way faults are present in specific claims, not the arbitrary employment of “yay” or “boo” ascriptions.
(This was edited a few times after initial posting.)
Is LW supposed to be a popularity contest, where gang affiliation is measured in the “karma” one has gained by not stepping on the toes of those who might down-vote (whatever that means) something they either dislike or don’t comprehend (and don’t want to admit they don’t comprehend)?
I can assure you that stepping on toes doesn’t interfere with karma gain all that much.
That sounds believable. My post has already been down-voted. Why? Who knows.
I downvoted you for the troll speak—that is, the billigerent defiance of the negative perception of your own behavior and the generalization of the defiance of karma to all cases, not just a specific disagreement.
...the billigerent defiance of the negative perception of your own behavior...
What? Where is that, exactly? The behavior isn’t negative, but the perception of it is, therefore I’m unjustified in being quite disgusted by it? It still seems to be a popularity contest that consists in an arbitrary ascription that generates nothing useful in an “art of rationality” setting.
And suggesting that someone is a troll is by far the most bathetic exercise of non-rational discourse. But, go ahead, down-vote this, too, if you feel better by it.
The behavior isn’t negative, but the perception of it is, therefore I’m unjustified in being quite disgusted by it?
I express disgust with specific instances of voting. I downvote generalised defiance and “I’m going to leave” bluster. It’s not a big deal—I just prefer that people don’t make comments like that and so I downvote them.
And suggesting that someone is a troll is by far the most bathetic exercise of non-rational discourse. But, go ahead, down-vote this, too, if you feel better by it.
The specific comment contained trollspeak—you are not a troll.
I express disgust with specific instances of voting.
Okay, I see your point. But the way the voting system is set up, it generalizes across one’s presence on the website, hence “karma”.
To be clear, I wasn’t being “defiant”. I asked a very specific question, expecting specific input, not a down-vote and being told (in a “put up or shut up” fashion) that I am just wrong. Well, LW is looking less inviting as a place for truly “rational discourse”. But I digress.
“I’m going to leave” bluster.
I thought it was clear that if the question was answered in the affirmative (with clear reasoning), then it would be reasonable for someone to leave such a forum. I stand by that, too, because it would be a waste of my time to put thought into posts and to have them down-voted out of existence. It is wise for a community (if that’s what it is) to consider its own nature from a meta-stand point. Is LW a treasure trove of instances of “fooling oneself”? A case study leads to many others.
Uncountably many is the correct answer, and yet it’s one of the down-voted posts.
Yes, but that post didn’t just contain the words “uncountably many”, it also contained babble like “it is absurd to suppose there is a universe in which something, if there be anything, does not exist. ” which even if perceived in the context of Tegmark IV which argues for the existence of all mathematical objects, it has nothing to do with the Many-Worlds Interpretation that the original poster was asking about, and which is Tegmark III, not Tegmark IV.
So 95% of that post was utterly irrelevant to the question asked, and yet pretending to be relevant. A horrible signal-to-noise ratio.
And yet you complain that it currently has a −1 downvote? It was probably worthy of atleast a −4 or thereabouts.
Uncountably many is the correct answer, and yet it’s one of the down-voted posts. In another thread, my posts were also down-voted, despite their well-reasoned bases.
Uncountably many is the correct answer, and yet it’s one of the down-voted posts. In another thread, my posts were also down-voted, despite their well-reasoned bases.
Personally, I think the voting system is corrupt, and – especially given that one can create an account, get a few votes, and start wreaking havoc with the presumed perception of posts – LW will only be more wrong than anything I might imagine. Is LW supposed to be a popularity contest, where gang affiliation is measured in the “karma” one has gained by not stepping on the toes of those who might down-vote (whatever that is supposed to suggest; one guesses 1= “yay” and −1=”boo”) something they either dislike or don’t comprehend (and don’t want to admit they don’t comprehend)? If so, I’m already counting the days I continue “participating”.
The measure of a post should consist in its merits, but the way LW invites censors, I hardly think the improvement of the “art of human rationality” will manifest. After all, an excellent exercise of rational thought is to show in what way faults are present in specific claims, not the arbitrary employment of “yay” or “boo” ascriptions.
(This was edited a few times after initial posting.)
I can assure you that stepping on toes doesn’t interfere with karma gain all that much.
That sounds believable. My post has already been down-voted. Why? Who knows.
I downvoted you for the troll speak—that is, the billigerent defiance of the negative perception of your own behavior and the generalization of the defiance of karma to all cases, not just a specific disagreement.
I never generalized. I asked a question. Read the post again, if you care to.
What? Where is that, exactly? The behavior isn’t negative, but the perception of it is, therefore I’m unjustified in being quite disgusted by it? It still seems to be a popularity contest that consists in an arbitrary ascription that generates nothing useful in an “art of rationality” setting.
And suggesting that someone is a troll is by far the most bathetic exercise of non-rational discourse. But, go ahead, down-vote this, too, if you feel better by it.
I express disgust with specific instances of voting. I downvote generalised defiance and “I’m going to leave” bluster. It’s not a big deal—I just prefer that people don’t make comments like that and so I downvote them.
The specific comment contained trollspeak—you are not a troll.
Okay, I see your point. But the way the voting system is set up, it generalizes across one’s presence on the website, hence “karma”.
To be clear, I wasn’t being “defiant”. I asked a very specific question, expecting specific input, not a down-vote and being told (in a “put up or shut up” fashion) that I am just wrong. Well, LW is looking less inviting as a place for truly “rational discourse”. But I digress.
I thought it was clear that if the question was answered in the affirmative (with clear reasoning), then it would be reasonable for someone to leave such a forum. I stand by that, too, because it would be a waste of my time to put thought into posts and to have them down-voted out of existence. It is wise for a community (if that’s what it is) to consider its own nature from a meta-stand point. Is LW a treasure trove of instances of “fooling oneself”? A case study leads to many others.
Yes, but that post didn’t just contain the words “uncountably many”, it also contained babble like “it is absurd to suppose there is a universe in which something, if there be anything, does not exist. ” which even if perceived in the context of Tegmark IV which argues for the existence of all mathematical objects, it has nothing to do with the Many-Worlds Interpretation that the original poster was asking about, and which is Tegmark III, not Tegmark IV.
So 95% of that post was utterly irrelevant to the question asked, and yet pretending to be relevant. A horrible signal-to-noise ratio.
And yet you complain that it currently has a −1 downvote? It was probably worthy of atleast a −4 or thereabouts.
How do you know that? Feel free to link to a mathematically sound reference.
I’m fairly certain no such references exist.
Prase and I contend in the other thread that Argumzio’s comments are not well-reasoned.
And wrongly contend at that.