Fabric of Reality Book Club

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead 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. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 11 days ago·#2010

Do explanations have to be expressible?

Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje, 9 days ago·#2030

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

Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 days ago·#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, 2 days ago·#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.

Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 2 days ago·#2256

My point is rather that it's not so clean a line between explicit and inexplicit. You're a doctor, so imagine the steps being something like:

  1. Extensive description of patient's symptoms, test results, conclusion, etc, in English.
  2. Same as above but mostly made out of quick notes by attending doctors and nurses.
  3. Only a collection of test names and test results. Test results accompanied by Chinese.
  4. Just a collection of numbers coming out of tests, without saying which test.

Arguably all the information is always there, and can be read off, but with increasing difficulty, requiring you to learn another language, or do a series of deductions.

Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·#2274

Yeah nice, seems true. There's no objective explicit/inexplicit ratio for knowledge, it depends on the person's background knowledge.