Search Ideas

I notice a distinct feeling of boredom after a certain amount of time in bed.

I notice a tendency to find more things to do (such as research questions) leading up to bedtime, similar to how I miraculously find more tasks to do (such as taking out the trash) when trying to leave the house for an appointment (I have a lifelong habit of running late as well; I suspect a relation between these two).

This perpetual creep of waking time will mean one's circadian rhythm is messed up, inverting every several days. (Being out of sync with sunlight is a health concern.)

Daytime noise in any kind of city is hard to avoid. One can try to optimize their living situation to avoid, but that's not always doable. Earplugs and noise-machines can help, but have never been totally foolproof for me.

This perpetual 2-hour creep is not compatible with the obligations of life, such as getting to work by 9am every weekday.

I do fall asleep more quickly the longer I've been awake, but not by as much as one would hope. After being up 18 hours, it still may take an hour or more for me to fall asleep.

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.

On days when I have extensively exercised, worked, socialized or all of the above, my trouble falling asleep seems largely unchanged. (It still often takes ~2 hours, without chemical intervention.)

Time-release melatonin also does not noticeably affect the larger issue for me of falling asleep.

Standard melatonin backfires, causing me (and at least one other person I know) to wake up at around hour 5 after falling asleep (maybe when it has finished metabolizing). This is bad, especially if it means you cannot fall back asleep (as in my case, more than half the time).

I am sometimes physically tired by hour 16 of the day, but I can easily stay up and continue working to hour 18 or 20. I have no caffeine or nighttime sugar.

Falling asleep has been a lifelong challenge for me. I suspect there is a "preference fight" going on, among other things, keeping my thoughts highly active.

The capital a business receives from a buyer is feedback that is non-specific to the content of the product or the business which produced it. It's not knowledge bearing. It's a fungible, universal form of feedback, like energy -- and like the number of instances of a replicator..?

The appropriate term is range, not codomain. Correcting that and the redundancy per #5189: A program's reach is the intersection of its range and the solutions to current problems.

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 "range" is the actual term. The instantiation of each item in the range is an occurrence of my "inferential novelty". The range 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 think all problems are known, so we can just say "solutions to problems."
A problem is a conflict between theories, meaning it relates to knowledge currently instantiated.

I'm on PC, and alt+shift+hyphen does not work—but alt+0151 on numpad does... which is a very Windows way to do it, but I'll take it.

But then there would need to be a preprogrammed dogmatic program at the bottom. (Or would there..?)

But this depends on what a "problem" is; any output will be the solution to some problem, somewhere, so all programs would have unlimited reach.

I've been thinking of death as the loss of an instance of an idea from the soup. Part of what I'm curious about here is the epistemic difference between deaths of instances, and deaths of the whole lineage (which seems like a "refutation" in a different, more meaningful sense). See #5167.

By "weight" I meant that there being fewer instances of an idea (or less causal power, as you propose), doesn't actually criticize anything (content-wise), until the idea drops to zero (at which point, that idea is gone, and the knowledge content in the system has meaningfully changed -- epistemically changed...). Extinction (death of all instances -- and alleles..?) does seem like a refutation of the idea/gene.

This is the same as in an economy, seems to me. Maybe part of what can be clarified in this discussion will be these different modes of criticism. Please see #5133 and related.

Does not happen? With unlimited resources, why can't it? Competition will not always prevent it, will it?

But couldn't scarcity of resources be part of the underlying mechanism? We wouldn't want to say, "assume no speed limit to mass, because we want the underlying necessity of the mechanism of gravity." But the scarcity of speed is integral to the mechanism.

no scarcity for idea resources

"Idea resources" are computational resources, which are always scarce. Even with universality (modulo resources), the limits of the resources must have some effects on the evolution, I would think. Some developmental paths cannot be taken.

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

Deleting posts can really mess up the continuity of discussions, and allow for dishonesty.