Search Ideas

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).

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.

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 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.)

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 also does not noticeably affect the larger issue for me of falling asleep.

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.

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..?)

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.

I’ve been using Spotify for over a decade.

Every few months I try Apple Music only to run into bugs and switch back.

But this most recent switch is actually decent.

Transferring my favorited songs from Spotify finally worked.

AutoMix song transitions are fantastic.

Spatial Audio is a win.

Fingers crossed I won’t have a reason to return to Spotify this time.

Explanations are functions. In other words, explanations are software. There’s no sharp distinction between explanations and end products here. So the concern about tight coupling still applies.

@edwin-de-wit recently asked Deutsch about this:

… hard to vary can also be a property that you don’t want. Sometimes they say that complicated systems are just so entangled that they’re no longer changeable. You could call that hard to vary but it’s not a property you pursue.

Deutsch’s reply:

Quite so. So hard to vary is about explanations, not about end products. So the end product should be easy to vary, if you want to. But it should be hard to vary in the sense that you don’t want to.

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.

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.

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).