Link: https://youtu.be/NH4Afk1-PGo
This stream we discussed:
- What I’ve been doing with my website
- What the heck are idealizations
- Shech’s paper + briefly QHE
Useful points to work out later
- I can liken ballspace to the “Heap” paradox/vagueness
- Normally inf ids are hard to liken because there’s no clear boundary point you cross, you normally only “reach” it.
- With ballspace there is a space in 3d where there is multipliconnectedness and you can manipulate the space (add grains) to get to the problem region.
- I can also VERY EASILY DO THIS with freakin phase transitions!!! There is a clear point where you transition, you were just so hyperfocused on the number of particles that you did not take the temperature into account.
- COUNTERPOINT: Contra to the heap, we can define a specific (critical) point: our problem is not with understanding 2Dness or phase as it is with the heap.
- COUNTERCOUNTERPOINT: maybe we don’t understand phase or dimensionality as well as we think! Just like in the heap we understand grains, we just don’t understand their behavior, here we understand temperature/height, we just don’t understand phase/whatever.
- My thesis could just make the point: hey, these are similar, how interesting, someone should look into this more lmao
- PROBLEMO: the transition point is not vague, we have theory to tell us where it is.
- Schech’s point about philsci needing to track scientists conceptions of explanation isn’t that strong because scientists are stupid sometimes, e.g. interpretations of quantum mechanics.
- Additionally, Philosophy of science is not anthropology
- I should maybe redo my website as a completely SSRd thing
- I could explain multiply connectedness with a cowboy lassoing something (could be better but its something!)
- Maybe get a Wacom?