Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·2,904 ideas: 1,929 adoptable, 975 rejectable
Founder Veritula.
Author. Software engineer. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
dennishackethal.com
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, 3 months 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, 3 months 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, 3 months 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.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 5 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?
#5145·Tyler Mills, 3 months 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, 3 months 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
#5148·Tyler Mills, 3 months agoI question whether previous versions of a criticism should contribute to the battle-tested count, as they do currently. Someone can make a spelling correction to the criticism, which creates the "supersedes" criticism of that previous version of the criticism, and that then contributes to the battle-tested count. This seems wrong, since that counter-criticism is not substantive, and even if it were, OP only generally responds to the latest version of a criticism (may not even have known about previous versions; all of this happened in: https://veritula.com/ideas/5089-knowledge-growth-such-as-in-genes-in-the-biospher).
… OP only generally responds to the latest version of a criticism …
I’m not sure that’s generally true. But regardless, OP should address all pending versions of a criticism.
#5145·Tyler Mills, 3 months 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).
I’m open to letting people contact me for serious cases (like accidentally posting their password or credit-card details). And then I can delete that content manually in the database.
Aside from that, we’d need to identify a case where simply criticizing a post isn’t enough. The criticism can state the reasons one would otherwise have for deleting a post.
#5145·Tyler Mills, 3 months 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).
Another problem with letting people delete posts is that others may have written a comment in the meantime, which they then can’t submit.
#5147·Tyler Mills, 3 months agoOkay to allow for posts that have no comments or criticisms? Or only for posts on one's profile (perhaps also meeting that criterion)?
It can still mess up the continuity of discussions when the post to be deleted has parents.
#5145·Tyler Mills, 3 months 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).
Another choice: criticize one for being a duplicate. In the criticism, link to the original and instruct people to ignore the duplicate.
#5154·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoBut the system does have a way to identify automatically generated criticisms.
It does, but it has no universal way to semantically check why a criticism was generated this way. All it knows is that the criticism was generated as part of a superseding revision, but it doesn’t know the meaning of the contents of that revision.
#5153·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoYep. Was going to say this, too. The system has no semantic way to check the content of a criticism. So it has to assume that every unaddressed criticism is substantive.
But the system does have a way to identify automatically generated criticisms.
#5150·Tyler Mills revised 3 months agoBut sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count toward the battle-tested badge!
Yep. Was going to say this, too. The system has no semantic way to check the content of a criticism. So it has to assume that every unaddressed criticism is substantive.
#5116·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months ago
should_adopt?andpending_criticismsare implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause an infinite regress?
No because 1) there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms, and 2) the discussion graph is acyclic.
#5114·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months agoRecursive Epistemology
Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.
rubydef should_adopt? ideapending_criticisms(idea).none?enddef pending_criticisms ideacriticisms(idea).filter { |c| should_adopt?(c) }enddef criticisms ideachildren(idea).filter(&:criticism?)endThis approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.
should_adopt? and pending_criticisms are implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause an infinite regress?
Simplify code
Recursive Epistemology
Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.
def criticized? ideapending_criticisms(idea).any?enddef pending_criticisms ideacriticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }enddef criticisms ideachildren(idea).filter(&:criticism?)end
This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.
Recursive Epistemology
Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.
def should_adopt? ideapending_criticisms(idea).none?enddef pending_criticisms ideacriticisms(idea).filter { |c| should_adopt?(c) }enddef criticisms ideachildren(idea).filter(&:criticism?)end
This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.
#5096·Sam Cymbaluk, 3 months agoif somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.
Agreed. My point is that you can't refute a flaw by saying the flaw doesn't have a workable system to resolve it. "Your boat has a hole in it". "Yeah, well I don't have any way of fixing it". That doesn't resolve the criticism of the boat. If it's unfixable and a real flaw, you might just need a new boat.
Assuming Sam did mean to criticize my opposition to assigning strengths to criticisms:
The issue isn’t that we don’t have a way to fix the hole. (We often do.)
The issue is that we have no rigorous way to tell how big the hole is. So, rather than evade criticisms by saying ‘but it’s only a small hole’, I’m saying we should always either fix holes in the boat, no matter their size, or choose a different boat.
#5096·Sam Cymbaluk, 3 months agoif somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.
Agreed. My point is that you can't refute a flaw by saying the flaw doesn't have a workable system to resolve it. "Your boat has a hole in it". "Yeah, well I don't have any way of fixing it". That doesn't resolve the criticism of the boat. If it's unfixable and a real flaw, you might just need a new boat.
Unclear what the boat stands for.
Sam criticized my idea, so presumably he means for the boat to represent #4711. But the way his criticism is phrased, it sounds more like the boat represents the methodology of assigning strengths to criticisms.
#5096·Sam Cymbaluk, 3 months agoif somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.
Agreed. My point is that you can't refute a flaw by saying the flaw doesn't have a workable system to resolve it. "Your boat has a hole in it". "Yeah, well I don't have any way of fixing it". That doesn't resolve the criticism of the boat. If it's unfixable and a real flaw, you might just need a new boat.
To be clear, the boat represents the idea that we should judge criticisms by their strength?
Logically, yes. But in practice, it won’t be the same.
For example:
Idea A: ‘Newtonian gravity is true.’ → Has pending criticisms (some predictions don’t match observation).
Idea B: ‘Newtonian gravity is not true.’ → Also has pending criticisms: ‘Not helpful’; ‘Doesn’t tell us how gravity works’; etc.
Related: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/
#5086·Sam Cymbaluk, 3 months agoAn inability to improve on the criticized aspect of a system is not a refutation of that criticism.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.