Fabric of Reality Book Club

Showing only ideas leading to #2238 and its comments.

See full discussion·​See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. You may need to scroll sideways.
Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt·​#2010·​

Do explanations have to be expressible?

Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje·​#2030·​

Can't think of how it could be otherwise. Do you have any examples of inexplicit explanations?

Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt·​#2238·​

Let's fuck with your intuitions a little bit:

Say "stop" when it's no longer an explanation:

  • Didactic chapter in plain English with examples and edge cases, distilled into a concise technical note with formal definitions, invariants, and pseudocode.

  • Literate program interleaving prose and code, or a heavily commented Python implementation with docstrings and tests.

  • The same code stripped of comments/tests and then minified or obfuscated (e.g., Python one‑liner, obfuscated C), up through esolangs and formalisms (Brainfuck, untyped lambda calculus with Church numerals, SKI combinators).

  • Operational specifications with minimal labels (Turing machine tables), then hand‑written assembly without labels and self‑modifying tricks, down to raw machine code bytes/hex and binary blobs with unknown ISA or entry point.

  • The same bits recast as DNA base mapping with unknown block codec, unknown compression, encrypted archives indistinguishable from noise, arbitrary bitstrings for unspecified UTMs, or physical media (flux/RF) without modulation specs.

Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje·​#2255·​

Haha not a programmer so understood maybe half of it, but I think I see what you mean. There'll always be inexplicit parts to every explanation. My concept of explanations is that there must be at least some explicit part for it to be called an explanation. That's why genes aren't explanations.

  • Rationally adoptable.
  • Not rationally adoptable.
  • Older versions with pending criticisms.
  • Ideas are blue, criticisms red, comments small and gray.
  • Hover over ideas to expand them.
  • Click on ideas to jump to their place in the discussion.