Paul Frigge @TheVoidConstant

Improbability Theorem: For every sufficiently improbable event that is observed, there exists a probable model in which the observed event is more likely.

Logic works because of logic, and illogic works because of illogic. Neither system explains the other.

One of my big difficulties is extrapolating when to extrapolate. I search for patterns, but I jump on dumb patterns, which vastly outnumber true patterns. But you can't extrapolate that true patterns don't exist because you haven't found any.

Statistical laws work in the absence of stronger forces. But I think forces exist which can (far from always) manipulate statistics.

My measurement of diversity is if a person goes out of their way to harm people they don't like for whatever reason. I think society will function better when such action is minimal.

If a force existed outside of time, it wouldn't need to generate the universe, because it would already know everything at once. Such a force to us would be indistinguishable from the entirety of the universe. So I posit that a sense of time is universal for real models.

Part of my worldview is working with apparent paradoxes, where I simultaneously work logically with a claim as though it were true, while taking precautions against the situation where it is false. I think this methodology has merit.

My time usage is affected by the St. Petersburg paradox. On the one hand I can speculate, and I believe my speculations have high potential. On the other hand, I need to produce things in the real world to survive.

I claim that world harmony would be easier to accomplish in my framework than in any other "standard model", because differences of thought become fountains of diversity instead of inescapable problems.

It is much easier for me to to work in a logical framework where the maximum amount of consistency possible is achieved than to accept "the standard model (whatever that means to you)" as absolute.

There are about 7.7 billion different views of the world. It is quite unlikely that any one of them is uniquely correct.

Platonic friend groupings are important measurements of success

I am a time traveler into the future, but not the past. From now on, the laws of logic can change over time.

There is free will, and that is good.

A pseudorandom number generator is completely controlled by the laws of mathematics, so it won't necessarily produce fair random outcomes.

Random.org is fair, because it uses atmospheric noise for seeding purposes.

The lottery could be a fair form of taxation, because those who expect to get the most out of it will put the most into it.

Everything works, until you find a pattern that prevents it.