huh?
This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.
This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.
No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop.
> No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
You are not a loop. You are a person.
I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop.
Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy:
let A = λx.xx
let A = λx.xx;
AA
A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop.
The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.