Search Ideas

It strikes me that I may have some confusion around compromise. There's an idea (from who/where? Gemini says Brett Hall...) that a compromise can actually be bad, because it is a new theory that no one was advocating for. So if it fails, it's harder to learn from and hold anyone accountable for. Yet, to resolve our procrastination and other hangups (and many problems in life), it seems like finding a common preference is the thing to do (and it seems like it works). But isn't that the same as compromising?

Increase reliability of the quiet apartment search by thoroughly interviewing several neighboring residents.

Interesting. But I would guess it only works well for constant sounds. The sensor has to read the waveform to create one that cancels it. Will not do much for short impulses of sound, which are the main offender (my current neighbors are okay, for the record).

I also clearly procrastinate preparing food and eating, almost every day, conflicting with caloric intake goals. I had an anxiety disorder around eating in childhood for a few years. I suspect some residual hangup from that, but hard to say. Relates to the sleep trouble..?

When this happens, the advice is to get out of bed and do something else (without bright or blue light) for a while.

So just stay up 18 hours every day, and sleep in the next day by the extra two hours (assuming 8, which seems optimal for me).

If I had a large dinner only two hours before attempting sleep, the trouble to fall asleep seems about the same as if I have an empty stomach, or any other degree of fullness on that continuum.

I suspect the issue is mental, because I sometimes feel tired getting into bed, then immediately feel progressively less tired, the longer I am in bed. The tiredness sometimes comes and goes, over the course of maybe one or two hours, before sleep comes. This suggests to me that my thinking is causing my wakefulness. I have observed this effect for as long as I can remember.

On days where I have not looked at a screen at all, my trouble falling asleep is the same.

Adhere to standard sleep hygiene. That will help you fall asleep in a reasonable time (<30mins?) and get a healthy 7-8 hours.

Time-release melatonin has solved the backfire problem for me. But I don't want to be dependent on it forever to get a good 8 hours.

This framing seems good, sure. So what does "critical" really mean?
Does it mean: "Can change an existing thing"..? But that criticism program is dogmatic w.r.t. itself, isn't it? This is the whole question, here (or I'm confused), in your terms:
Can criticism, the variation of a dogmatic program, only happen at the hands of another dogmatic program? There's only "externally facing" criticism..? There are no critical programs? Only dogmatic ones criticizing other dogmatic ones.

So reach should only ever be invoked with respect to existing knowledge? So a program's reach is the intersection of its codomain and the solutions to known problems.

Maybe this definition accommodates both the multiversal and atemporal aspects of reality: a program's reach is the set of its outputs that solve problems in any universe (past, present or adjacent).

Fun question. Say the reach of a program is the set of all problems it can solve or help solve (whether anyone knows, or whether the problems exist yet). All of that program's possible outputs together comprise the implication space -- it sounds like "codomain" is actual term. The instantiation of each item in the codomain is an occurrence of my "inferential novelty". The codomain is implicit in a program when it is created, but not all of that output will help solve problems. The program's reach is the subset that does.

I 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.)

But sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count to the battle-tested badge!

I 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).

Okay to allow for posts that have no comments or criticisms? Or only for posts on one's profile (perhaps also meeting that criterion)?

No 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).

Wouldn't it have to be instantiated in the overall system itself, which contains the replicators (among other things?)? Otherwise, how could that variable be a form of criticism by the system?

How is the quantity of a replicator not based in the same medium as the replicator?

Non-specific criticisms, those not taking into account the content of their target, are always "analogue" (or quantitative as opposed to qualitative) in the sense of being based on a variable whose quantity changes in a medium distinct from that hosting the knowledge it is serving as criticism for. (E.g. capital allocation in an economy; number of instances of a replicator.)

Specific criticisms, those taking into account the content of their target, are always discrete and absolute because they identify a contradiction. (E.g. criticisms of a scientific theory.)

Maybe natural selection logically does not require death, but when we introduce a scarcity of resources, isn't death an inevitable byproduct? Eventually, the best replicating will be those which take the resources from others? If no death, then number of entities increases without bound. So any real system will have it, or will stop functioning when the limit is reached.

It's sort of like: the "this is replicating less" criticism has no actual weight to it unless there is a point beneath which any less fecundity = bye-bye.
**If things with arbitrarily low fecundity are left intact forever, how is differential replication a criticism?**