Comments on “When will you go bald?”

Add new comment

Ha!

Kenny 2020-09-01

I’ve been loving the recent posts (I write as I’m currently several weeks behind). I’m enjoying the riffing.

One thing I found amusing is in thinking that, in practice, ‘baldness’ really could be ‘sharpened’. IIRC, there have been studies about the precise ‘distribution’ of ‘redness’ among peoples. If there was a sufficiently motivating purpose, I could readily imagine “Ahh, yes, he has {0.13, 0.57} hair distribution; very much what would have been previously considered ‘bald’.”

There’s a kind of [ha!] shadow corollary to your meta-rationalism thesis (and you’ve definitely mentioned it, if somewhat indirectly) [emphasis mine]:

Is vermillion (differing from central red mainly in hue) more or less truly red than crimson (differing from central red mainly in lightness)? You could create a unified difference metric by choosing axis weights, but it would have no meaning, unless it were formulated to address a particular practical purpose.

While there is no eternal meaning, absolute truth, or perfect rational algorithm for either forming (absolutely) true beliefs or making optimal decisions, we could get arbitrarily close – if we wanted to.

Spatial distribution matters; that is why hair transplantation surgery can make a bald person non-bald. However, distribution would be difficult (and probably meaningless) to quantify.

I’m less skeptical that it hasn’t already been done and isn’t meaningful too (to someone, for some purpose).

[I realized, after typing the above, that this is ‘just’ a restatement of things you’ve already written about, extensively!]

Existence/reality, viewed as a ‘charnel ground’ (or hell): there is no eternal meaning, absolute truth, or perfect rational algorithm for either forming (absolutely) true beliefs or making optimal decisions.

But there’s lots we can do instead of lamenting the impossibility of fixed, eternal, absolute ‘perfection’.

Indeed, biological evolution has done a pretty good job of producing ‘biotech’ for the creation of meaning and truth via ‘good enough’ (tho also very sophisticated!) algorithms, as you point out in footnote [5], where you mention the color constancy that our eyes and brains calculate.

And, after giving up on ‘escaping the charnel ground’, we can notice that the fact that there is any stable meaninginess, that any kind or degree of truth is possible, or that any algorithms are even ‘good enough’ (for often fantastic purposes), is amazing and, in some sense, a miracle. (Existence is also a ‘pure land’!)

very minor nitpick

Juraj 2021-06-07

Dichroic coating or holograms don’t use pigments.

Yes it can be said that nebulosity argument might apply to the definition of “pigment” here too… but between us engineers, please don’t.

Non-black non-pigments

David Chapman 2021-06-07

Thank you very much for pointing this out! Fixed now.

Add new comment:

You can use some Markdown and/or HTML formatting here.

Optional, but required if you want follow-up notifications. Used to show your Gravatar if you have one. Address will not be shown publicly.

If you check this box, you will get an email every time someone else posts a comment here. The emails include links to unsubscribe.