Activity Feed
#5183·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days ago@edwin-de-wit recently asked Deutsch about this:
… hard to vary can also be a property that you don’t want. Sometimes they say that complicated systems are just so entangled that they’re no longer changeable. You could call that hard to vary but it’s not a property you pursue.
Deutsch’s reply:
Quite so. So hard to vary is about explanations, not about end products. So the end product should be easy to vary, if you want to. But it should be hard to vary in the sense that you don’t want to.
Explanations are functions. In other words, explanations are software. There’s no sharp distinction between explanations and end products here. So the concern about tight coupling still applies.
#3718·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 months agoFrom my article:
[D]epending on context, being hard to change can be a bad thing. For example, ‘tight coupling’ is a reason software can be hard to change, and it’s considered bad because it reduces maintainability.
@edwin-de-wit recently asked Deutsch about this:
… hard to vary can also be a property that you don’t want. Sometimes they say that complicated systems are just so entangled that they’re no longer changeable. You could call that hard to vary but it’s not a property you pursue.
Deutsch’s reply:
Quite so. So hard to vary is about explanations, not about end products. So the end product should be easy to vary, if you want to. But it should be hard to vary in the sense that you don’t want to.
#5181·Tyler MillsOP, 3 days agoBut this depends on what a "problem" is; any output will be the solution to some problem, somewhere, so all programs would have unlimited reach.
So reach should only ever be invoked with respect to existing knowledge? So a program's reach is the intersection of its codomain and the solutions to known problems.
#5180·Tyler MillsOP, 3 days agoMaybe this definition accommodates both the multiversal and atemporal aspects of reality: a program's reach is the set of its outputs that solve problems in any universe (past, present or adjacent).
But this depends on what a "problem" is; any output will be the solution to some problem, somewhere, so all programs would have unlimited reach.
#5179·Tyler MillsOP, 3 days agoFun question. Say the reach of a program is the set of all problems it can solve or help solve (whether anyone knows, or whether the problems exist yet). All of that program's possible outputs together comprise the implication space -- it sounds like "codomain" is actual term. The instantiation of each item in the codomain is an occurrence of my "inferential novelty". The codomain is implicit in a program when it is created, but not all of that output will help solve problems. The program's reach is the subset that does.
Maybe this definition accommodates both the multiversal and atemporal aspects of reality: a program's reach is the set of its outputs that solve problems in any universe (past, present or adjacent).
#5172·Dennis Hackethal, 6 days agoHow much overlap is there between the concept of inferential novelty and reach, if any?
Fun question. Say the reach of a program is the set of all problems it can solve or help solve (whether anyone knows, or whether the problems exist yet). All of that program's possible outputs together comprise the implication space -- it sounds like "codomain" is actual term. The instantiation of each item in the codomain is an occurrence of my "inferential novelty". The codomain is implicit in a program when it is created, but not all of that output will help solve problems. The program's reach is the subset that does.
Taking Popper Too Far, Again: https://libertythroughreason.com/taking-popper-too-far-again/
Rationality as Computation: https://libertythroughreason.com/rationality-as-computation/
#5175·Liberty Fitz-Claridge, 6 days agoI think we agree that the conjecturing and criticising of explanations is where the progress happens, and this choice you're saying people make at the end among conjectured theories is (relatively) mechanical. But I would also point out that trying to measure how HTV a theory is is as futile and scientistic as trying to measure moral worth. Yet it's still possible to have meaningful discussions about morality. I can't measure the moral value of murder but I can meaningfully argue it's worse than theft. So I think the claim that "if you can't program it you don't understand it" doesn't apply so universally as #3020 implies.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I asked how I can know that our discussion about HTV will be productive if we continue it now. (For context and for others: I’ve found that Liberty and I have roughly the same discussion in various venues every few months or so. I raised this issue in the linked X thread.)
I didn’t ask you to continue the object-level discussion itself.
Please address my concern before continuing the discussion.
#3924·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 months agoIt seems that you've taken the idea of hard to vary as saying that the process of choosing between competing theories is just about measuring how much of this trait they have. One clearly wouldn’t get better explanations from doing that, as it would just be a mechanical way of judging theories.
Yes, but as I understood Deutsch, this process of choosing happens after one has conjectured and criticized a bunch of explanations. I don’t think he suggests that the application of the HTV criterion makes theories better, only that we should use it to choose between explanations after they have been guessed and improved.
So the process of choosing between already existing explanations really is “just about measuring how much of this trait they have.”
I think we agree that the conjecturing and criticising of explanations is where the progress happens, and this choice you're saying people make at the end among conjectured theories is (relatively) mechanical. But I would also point out that trying to measure how HTV a theory is is as futile and scientistic as trying to measure moral worth. Yet it's still possible to have meaningful discussions about morality. I can't measure the moral value of murder but I can meaningfully argue it's worse than theft. So I think the claim that "if you can't program it you don't understand it" doesn't apply so universally as #3020 implies.
Would it help to distinguish between dogmatic vs. critical information processing?
That’s a distinction I’ve been using. All programs written to date are dogmatic. Whereas a genuine evolutionary algorithm would be critical, at least in part.
We don’t know how to write critical code. We only know how to write dogmatic code that looks critical.
#5106·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoFor the changes made by a source of variation to be dependent on the content of any knowledge in the target, the source would have to contain knowledge itself. (The DNA mutation sources do not.) Blind changes are dependent on the medium in which information is contained, like an A versus a G in a strand of DNA (assuming these are information media). But the change made to the A or G by the cosmic ray is independent of the information they are hosting, if any. Any changes by the ray are dependent on the physical/chemical structure of the target, the substrate. Information is substrate independent. It is not the information stored in the A or G that is determining what changes are made to them.
Cosmic rays have been known to flip bits in computers, eg impacting election results: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210505103N/abstract
However, due to computational universality, we should be able to simulate a knowledge-growing system plus cosmic rays impacting that system.
So then at that point the source of the mutation is part of the program again…
#5101·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoClaim: It is useful (if not crucial) to distinguish between two notions of novelty: inferential and non-inferential.
Knowledge that is inferentially novel may never have been seen before, but was already implicit in existing knowledge; it results from application and composition of existing knowledge (e.g. the running of programs). What is novel in this way can be instantiated without any external epistemic (knowledge-related) influence. A program needs infrastructure to allow its computation to occur; it does not need another program, in an epistemic sense: If there's a dependency, we should consider the two to be part of the same "epistemic system." Let's say the dependent target has no "implication space" until its needed source is causally linked to it. The source may have its own implication space. Once "joined," a new implication space is defined.
Inferentially novel output (the instantiation of knowledge in an implication space) is all that current computer software (and all AI) is capable of. These systems "create" knowledge only in this sense.
How much overlap is there between the concept of inferential novelty and reach, if any?
Paul Raymond-Robichaud tells me (I think in this space) that in math, you can have a formalized notion of HTV. From what I recall he said, it sounded like that would be trivial to develop (for a mathematician like Paul – not for me).
Anyone who’s both mathematically and epistemologically inclined could give this a shot at generalization.
Space where Tyler, Charlie, and I discuss hard to vary: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2083018149151084792
#5164·Tyler Mills, 7 days agoI don't think so; just having a Wall of posts on my profile is fine, no funny business. Here I was only hoping to delete an accidental mis-post. Maybe allowing deletion of exact duplicates with no parents is reasonable? But this is just a cleanliness/organizational thing, and kind of a fluke, probably not an issue worth spending much time on. (But I stand by #5143, and regardless of the size of the revision. Seems cleaner to me to only show the latest version, no diff.)
Maybe allowing deletion of exact duplicates with no parents is reasonable?
Too niche/specific for an extra feature tbh. If accidental duplicates happened often, then maybe.
#5144·Zakery Mizell, 8 days agoThe term "death" is being used too vaguely. (Or else I am misunderstanding.) Do you think that a gene replicating and then dying (while its offspring survives) is "death?" A "refutation?"
Or do you mean "total elimination of the allele" as "death" or "refutation?"
I've been thinking of death as the loss of an instance of an idea from the soup. Part of what I'm curious about here is the epistemic difference between deaths of instances, and deaths of the whole lineage (which seems like a "refutation" in a different, more meaningful sense). See #5167.
#5152·Zakery Mizell, 8 days agoThe criticism "this is replicating less" should be generalized to "this allele/information has less causal power than an alternative." That has tremendous weight.
There is a natural preference for the one with more causal power, it is naturally selected over alternatives.
However, it is not clear to me how you are "weighing" these criticisms. So maybe my weighing isn't relevant to your weighing.
By "weight" I meant that there being fewer instances of an idea (or less causal power, as you propose), doesn't actually criticize anything (content-wise), until the idea drops to zero (at which point, that idea is gone, and the knowledge content in the system has meaningfully changed -- epistemically changed...). Extinction (death of all instances -- and alleles..?) does seem like a refutation of the idea/gene.
This is the same as in an economy, seems to me. Maybe part of what can be clarified in this discussion will be these different modes of criticism. Please see #5133 and related.
#5142·Zakery Mizell, 8 days agoIn addition to scarcity, you have to assume unbounded growth of the population in an ecosystem, which does not happen.
Does not happen? With unlimited resources, why can't it? Competition will not always prevent it, will it?
#5141·Zakery Mizell, 8 days agoScarcity of resources should not be assumed. You want underlying necessity of the mechanism, not a strained analogy. There is no scarcity for idea resources.
But couldn't scarcity of resources be part of the underlying mechanism? We wouldn't want to say, "assume no speed limit to mass, because we want the underlying necessity of the mechanism of gravity." But the scarcity of speed is integral to the mechanism.
no scarcity for idea resources
"Idea resources" are computational resources, which are always scarce. Even with universality (modulo resources), the limits of the resources must have some effects on the evolution, I would think. Some developmental paths cannot be taken.
#5161·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoDiscussions have an ‘Archive’ button for top-level posts. It looks like a box you’d put on a shelf in an archive.
Top-level profile posts could have such a button, too. And I could add an ‘Archived’ tab.
Would that help you achieve what you’re looking for?
I don't think so; just having a Wall of posts on my profile is fine, no funny business. Here I was only hoping to delete an accidental mis-post. Maybe allowing deletion of exact duplicates with no parents is reasonable? But this is just a cleanliness/organizational thing, and kind of a fluke, probably not an issue worth spending much time on. (But I stand by #5143, and regardless of the size of the revision. Seems cleaner to me to only show the latest version, no diff.)
#4977·Tyler Mills, 2 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Did you know you can type em dashes (on Mac) by hitting alt + shift + hyphen?
#5091·Tyler MillsOP, 15 days agoIf other criteria for the selection of conjectures were built into the system, such as in the genes of a human, the growth of knowledge would be bounded to only conjectures meeting those criteria, even if the variation/conjecture aspect of the process were proceeding via a random process with no built-in knowledge. Fixed criteria means bounded knowledge, means no universality. So for unbounded progress (universality), the criteria must also be varied. But how are they criticized? What criteria for their selection can there be to avoid a regress, except survival?
Greater causal power, of which differential survival is a subset.
#5145·Tyler Mills, 8 days agoNo way to delete posts. Posted same thing twice by mistake (unexpected Chrome behavior). Choices are to leave the duplicate, which seems inelegant, or to revise it into another whole post, which I did, but that contributed to the issue in #5143 (creates an unclear green and red update post).
Discussions have an ‘Archive’ button for top-level posts. It looks like a box you’d put on a shelf in an archive.
Top-level profile posts could have such a button, too. And I could add an ‘Archived’ tab.
Would that help you achieve what you’re looking for?
#5083·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days agoI’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought