AJ2884 on Nostr: If seemingly artificially constraining temperature is required to learn new things in ...
If seemingly artificially constraining temperature is required to learn new things in physics, than perhaps we know all that there is to know.
Also, "how do you measure the temperature of bitcoin..." presupposes that bitcoin has a temperature which is an assumption that I see no reason to make. To me, it sounds like trying to use inches to measure inflation, which I'd argue is incoherent and the completely wrong tool for the job. To me, it sounds like you're talking about something other than temperature which may or may not be conserved between Bitcoin and the material world.
Energy is assumed to be conserved in closed systems, but the universe isn't assumed to be a closed system, so energy isn't assumed to be considered within the universe. As the universe expands and things move farther apart, gravitational potential energy increases but doesn't come from a reduction in any other form of potential energy. The expansion of the universe seems to be continuously piping more and more energy into the universe.
If we make convenient, unjustified assertions in the name of enabling ourselves to learn new things, then we haven't learned new things, we've just made unjustified assertions, and this doesn't mean that your assertions are unjustifiable, but as far as I'm concerned, they're far from sufficiently substantiated or obvious to assume to be true.
I don't want to hear why it's important that they're true, I want to hear flushed out explanations of why they're true.
Similarly, maybe these will all feel like small assumptions compared to what they get us, but to me these seem like anything other than small assumptions.
Also, "how do you measure the temperature of bitcoin..." presupposes that bitcoin has a temperature which is an assumption that I see no reason to make. To me, it sounds like trying to use inches to measure inflation, which I'd argue is incoherent and the completely wrong tool for the job. To me, it sounds like you're talking about something other than temperature which may or may not be conserved between Bitcoin and the material world.
Energy is assumed to be conserved in closed systems, but the universe isn't assumed to be a closed system, so energy isn't assumed to be considered within the universe. As the universe expands and things move farther apart, gravitational potential energy increases but doesn't come from a reduction in any other form of potential energy. The expansion of the universe seems to be continuously piping more and more energy into the universe.
If we make convenient, unjustified assertions in the name of enabling ourselves to learn new things, then we haven't learned new things, we've just made unjustified assertions, and this doesn't mean that your assertions are unjustifiable, but as far as I'm concerned, they're far from sufficiently substantiated or obvious to assume to be true.
I don't want to hear why it's important that they're true, I want to hear flushed out explanations of why they're true.
Similarly, maybe these will all feel like small assumptions compared to what they get us, but to me these seem like anything other than small assumptions.