1-2f When you create better explanations, you discard the old ones
1-2f1 Popperian epistemology allows your knowledge to grow forever because it is digital. It can fix its errors by rejecting bad ideas
9-4b2b The evolution of ideas (memes) is somewhat intentional, whereas that of genes are random AND cannot be rejected
5-2c2b2 When you are long bullshit, you are short volatility and time
5-1b1 Invest in preparedness. Be redundant and resourceful in every aspect. Minimize opportunity cost to achieve great things.
9-2a3b1 Don’t pick up anything whose epistemology is not Popperian
AN3C - People don’t want better, they want less crap
Contradictory (in the sense of how can you decide one is better-worse than the others without an explanation?):
New explanations are to be judged by how many more problems they solved and introduced. It has to be consistent with your web of ideas, or they have to solve more than introduced. You have to know your web of ideas.
Decision is about creating new options from the best explanation that you can form from the web of ideas you have
1-2f1b3a1 The question is not whether anomalies happened in the past, but whether we have explanations for such anomalies.
Counter-argument for contradictory sources:
7-1c1 Intuition about which hill to climb is usually better than people realize
5-1b1a9 The Fun Criterion is an explanation
Not seeing much of a connection:
2-1a Information is in the difference. No difference, no information. 情報とは差異. 区別のないところに情報は生まれない.