Known, Unknown and Unknowable
#6031·Michael Briffa, 1 day agoEmpty criticism, issue not addressed. The checkbox provides no value and delays badges, limiting the amount one can interact with the site.
Let’s keep this discussion on topic. I’ll follow up with you privately.
Empty criticism, issue not addressed. The checkbox provides no value and delays badges, limiting the amount one can interact with the site.
#6023·Michael Briffa, 2 days agoI think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
Just check the checkbox
#6018·Dennis Hackethal, 2 days ago·AI-assistedI haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.
I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.
I think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
#6015·Michael Briffa, 3 days ago·AI-assistedThanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
As a rule of thumb, please try making your writing less verbose. For example: ‘unknowability implies existence.’
Brevity helps not just your readers but yourself: the longer your text, the more vulnerable it becomes to criticism.
If your readers need more info, they can ask.
I haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.
I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.
#6016·Dennis Hackethal, 2 days agoPangram estimates about 45% of this idea to be AI-generated. True?
Thanks. I agree that knowing aDoes "Thanks. I agree that knowing a" contain AI-generated text? Pangram finds that 45% of this document is AI-generated.
I used Wispr Flow, speech-to-text. Tough line to draw.
#6015·Michael Briffa, 3 days ago·AI-assistedThanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
Pangram estimates about 45% of this idea to be AI-generated. True?
#6009·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoHi Michael, welcome to V.
The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases.
Yes, we can, but note the switch from knowing such an impossible algorithm to understanding why such an algorithm is impossible. Those are two different things.
What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
A universal halting algorithm.
Thanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
#6008·Michael Briffa, 4 days agoIt is unclear to me why uncomputable should mean unknowable. The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases. Are you equating the impossibility of a universal computational procedure with the impossibility of knowledge? What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
Hi Michael, welcome to V.
The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases.
Yes, we can, but note the switch from knowing such an impossible algorithm to understanding why such an algorithm is impossible. Those are two different things.
What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
A universal halting algorithm.
#3973·Dennis Hackethal, 9 months agoBy definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.
This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
- https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.
So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.
In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.
It is unclear to me why uncomputable should mean unknowable. The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases. Are you equating the impossibility of a universal computational procedure with the impossibility of knowledge? What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
#3978·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 9 months agoThe sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.
#3970·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 9 months ago"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
Dostoevsky
Why haven't all atheists killed themselves?
The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
#3973·Dennis Hackethal, 9 months agoBy definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.
This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
- https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.
So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.
In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.
The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
#3968·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 9 months agoBy definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known. One can rationally and with confidence move on and not even entertain anything that claims to be 'beyond human understanding.'
By definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.
This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
- https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.
So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.
In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.
"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
Dostoevsky
"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
By definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known. One can rationally and with confidence move on and not even entertain anything that claims to be 'beyond human understanding.'
Zelalem Mekonnen updated discussion ‘Known, unknown and unknowable’.
The title changed from ‘Known, unknown and unknowable’ to ‘Known, Unknown and Unknowable’.
When it comes to knowledge, there are three categories. Things we know, things we don't know, and things that are unknowable.
Religion and mysticism can come from confusing the unknown with the unknowable.
Religion can provide a protection against the reality of facing the unknown, which is the only way to create knowledge.