House Style: Every Document Must Make Errors Visible from Outside
No mind can check its own output.
No mind can check its own output.
Testing Two Incommensurable Discoveries: A Head-to-Head Evidential Assessment of Contemporary Fundamental Physics (JWST + LHC) versus the Nag Hammadi Library
Decisions that rely on guesses, regardless of expertise, are just that, guesses. You want to know the right thing to do. You can't. Not ahead of time, unless you have causal evidence.
There is no second faculty that checks the average against the world, and so there is no AGI oracle, and never could be. That is why Agentic Loops are not a choice but a necessity.
The AI models are doing something new. They manufacture a "feeling" of certainty and hands it out cheaply.
A clinical trial simulator - experience signal, noise, and sample size first-hand. Simulate thousands of randomized controlled trials and watch how your assumptions shape power, Type I error, and validity.
The paradox in Borges' Aleph, the ergodic fallacy in gambling, and quantum foundations. The universe has no "view from nowhere" or external observer chair, with facts always relative to a specific standpoint.
We are surrounded, now more than ever, by fluent speech that no one thought. Thinking is Not fluency, not even rigour, but the act of turning reason against the ground it stands on.
Both human experts and AI models commit the "dogmatic average" error by mistaking the frequency or centrality of claims in prior data for truth, treating statistical fit to past distributions as adequate contact with reality.
The Architecture of Transcendence:.
Molecular Mechanisms, Signaling Dynamics, and Emerging Therapeutic Frontiers
"The human reconstruction of the past is not neutral, it is biased by desire."", Claude Opus 4.8
On the single most common way that a mind — silicon or carbon — goes wrong: mistaking the frequency of a claim for its truth. And on the only cure that has ever worked.
The Things That Can Betray You Are the Only Things That Can Be With You
At the foundation of the Western tradition of inquiry stands a man who wrote nothing, founded no doctrine, and claimed to know nothing at all. He left no book. His entire practice was the asking of questions, and the single thing he claimed was the confession that he did not possess it.
On what must be settled before a single word is written, and the discipline that follows from it