$500.00 Bounty for Idea #3069Beta
Idea to criticize
My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
Terms
Read the linked blog post at https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable in its entirety. Focus on Deutsch’s epistemology of hard and easy to vary.
I want to be proven wrong about Deutsch’s epistemology.
Eligible submissions must meet all of the following conditions:
- Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the relevant parts of my blog post (the parts criticizing Deutsch’s epistemology). Include a summary in your own words.
- Submit a working program implementing Deutsch’s epistemology in code. It must:
- Accept two strings representing arbitrary explanations in natural language (English).
- Return a ranking indicating which explanation is better, worse, or equal.
- Be rigorous, sufficiently specified, non-arbitrary, and meet industry standards for code reviews.
- Be fully testable – something I can paste into a console and run with various explanations.
- Accept two strings representing arbitrary explanations in natural language (English).
- Submissions must be handwritten. No AI-generated text or code; suspected AI use makes submissions ineligible.
- Any major programming language is acceptable (e.g., Ruby or JavaScript); avoid esoteric or niche languages.
Remember to mark your submissions as criticisms.
Site-wide terms apply. To be eligible for a payout, participants must connect a Stripe account in good standing and submit at least one direct criticism of idea #3069 meeting all bounty terms and having no pending counter-criticisms by the time the review period starts. Counter-criticisms do not need to meet the bounty terms.
Timeline
- Finished
- The bounty started. Participants could submit criticisms.
- Finished
- The bounty closed early because there were no eligible submissions.
Submissions
There were no eligible submissions.
Ineligible submissions
Submissions are rejected automatically if they have pending criticisms at the beginning of the review period.
I think your challenge asks for the wrong kind of thing. Deutsch’s “hard to vary” is a guideline for criticizing explanations, not a step by step decision algorithm. In this paper he says scientific methodology does not prescribe exact procedures, and that “better” explanations are not always totally rankable in a clean, mechanical way. “Hard to vary” mainly means avoiding explanations that can be tweaked to fit anything, because then they explain nothing, so the lack of a universal scoring program does not refute the idea.
THE LOGIC OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTS, PARTICULARLY OF EVERETTIAN QUANTUM THEORY
https://www.constructortheory.org/portfolio/logic-experimental-tests/
From the Paper:
An explanation is better the more it is constrained by the explicanda and by other good explanations,[5] but we shall not need precise criteria here; we shall only need the following: that an explanation is bad (or worse than a rival or variant explanation) to the extent that…
(i)
it seems not to account for its explicanda; or
(ii)
it seems to conflict with explanations that are otherwise good; or
(iii)
it could easily be adapted to account for anything (so it explains nothing).
I think the first question is whether HTV is a real concept (because if real, it is programmable, and via EC to arbitrary precision)
To understand if it’s real, we need to seek counterexamples/ counterarguments, not demand that a program can be written
What would such a program prove ? Not that HTV is real, but also not that we understand something about HTV.
That’s because Deutsch only says : no program = no understanding. That implies having a basic conception programmed can mean that you understand something. Take the season’s example, you could simulate that replacing Gods would not change the fact that they cry but that tears are not the same as rain etc. Granted, this would only be for 1 example, extending HTV to general examples would be needed. But with such basic program, for 1 example theory, we can’t conclude either that we do not understand anything about HTV.
But again, criticising HTV is the more important first step. Maybe examples of good theories with some ETV aspects (compared to rejected theories) in them could reveal some more.
I think the first question is whether HTV is a real concept (because if real, it is programmable, and via EC to arbitrary precision)
To understand if it’s real, we need to seek counterexamples/ counterarguments, not demand that a program can be written
What would such a program prove ? Not that HTV is real, but also not that we understand something about HTV.
That’s because Deutsch only says : no program = no understanding. That implies having a basic conception programmed can mean that you understand something. Take the season’s example, you could simulate that replacing Gods would not change the fact that they cry but that tears are not the same as rain etc. Granted, this would only be for 1 example, extending HTV to general examples would be needed. But with such basic program, for 1 example theory, we can’t conclude either that we do not understand anything about HTV.
Criticising HTV would anyway be the more important first step. Maybe examples of good theories with some ETV aspects (compared to rejected theories) in them could reveal some more.