John Cox

Blogs · @wyome · Now · Shelf

Tagged science · everything

Interesting

What's the probability that we're living in the Matrix?

Bostrom presents a trilemma arguing that at least one of three propositions must be true: either most civilizations at our development level go extinct before becoming technologically advanced, or advanced civilizations have no interest in running simulations of minds like ours, or we are almost certainly living in a simulation ourselves. The argument rests on the assumptions that consciousness can be implemented on any sufficiently powerful computational substrate and that advanced civilizations could generate an astronomically vast number of simulated minds—vastly outnumbering biological ones—making it probabilistically likely that any given mind is simulated rather than organic. Even if we accepted premise (3), Bostrom contends we should continue living normally using standard empirical methods, though the simulation hypothesis might subtly influence behavior if we made assumptions about the simulators' intentions or moral frameworks.

Permalink

Contents | How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School

This National Research Council report synthesizes cognitive science research on how people learn, covering how experts develop knowledge differently from novices, how learning transfers across contexts, and how children's minds develop. It examines the implications of this research for classroom teaching, teacher professional development, and educational technology, grounding practical recommendations for schools in evidence about memory, problem-solving, and knowledge organization in the brain.

Permalink

Damn Interesting » Blog Archive » The Phantom Time Hypothesis

German scholars have proposed that roughly 297 years were fictitiously inserted into our calendar during the early Middle Ages—meaning it's actually 1708, not 2005—based on inconsistencies like the Gregorian calendar's correction being smaller than it should be and mysterious gaps in historical construction records. While the proponents point to evidence of medieval document forgeries and historical discontinuities, their conclusions rest on circumstantial evidence at best, and their proposed motives for such a vast conspiracy (like Otto III wanting his reign to include the year 1000) strain credulity. The hypothesis, though intellectually intriguing for raising legitimate questions about historical dating, ultimately reflects an unscientific leap from ambiguous data to an extraordinary claim.

Permalink