I can see the dancers spinning in different directions.
The best way to draw a boundary around the high-probability things, without worrying about simplicity, is to just write down all your observations; they have probability 1 of having been observed, and everything else has probability 0.
This boundary is way too complicated; you've seen many things.
A finite-sized fractal in n_space still has measurable n_volume.
Its surface (n-1)_volume might be infinite, but we don't care about that.
Does that make sense?
Haha.
Thank you.
Cognition -> Convergence -> Corroboration
Now they've written the post on this.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEvCxNte6FKSRNFvN/3c-s-a-recipe-for-mathing-concepts
Hyperidealized art wouldn't be banned. There'd be much less of it, but not none.
It'd also be produced by much better artists.
I think you'd probably end up consuming hyperidealized art, too.
You'd notice that you preferred the more idealized art, among what you consumed, then you'd talk to a psychologist or something and they'd tell you that you'd probably be fine with the cognitohazardous stuff.
Why has my comment been given so much karma?
Sin(floor(2pi*10^n)) is never positive, for integer n.
Too simple, though.