1. There's an infinity of concepts, each concept has an infinity of versions. At the start there's total symmetry, point of view can be freely moved anywhere. To anchor it you have to make "double (global) choice", by choosing a specific version of a concept and excluding every other ("opinion squared")
*Relativity of concepts makes logic relative*
*Every single (local) adjective is relative, hypocritical. If you talk about "bravery", there's 1000 types of bravery, 1000 other good properties, and 1000 bad names for what you call "bravery" — and every choice have a cost, even the choice of a topic*
*The tail wags the dog or the dog wags the tail? And who is the dog, and who is the tail? And will you be chasing your own tail? (read on:)*
*Imagine an arrow on a transparent wheel. This arrow is totally fixed, it can't spin it seems (1). But does it matter if the wheel itself can spin? Or maybe the wheel is also fixed, but is part of another wheel. Or maybe you yourself are spinning... For (1) to make sense, we need to impose a restriction on the entire universe (all layers), and not on its separate section OR to choose a main layer*
*(Another moral: if an argument or even doctrine doesn't work on an important for us layer, it is a relative one)*
*You should restrict "displacement of choice(s)", break the symmetry, establish a fixed point or a stop-sign, update unequally...*
*Examples: Pascal Wager, "neck or nothing", Achilles and the tortoise & other Zeno's paradoxes, What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, Münchhausen trilemma, Infinite regress, Gettier problem, Epicycles, "Cogito ergo sum", Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Reference class problem, Further facts and egocentric presentism, bad theories and arguments. Ask if I need to describe the connections in detail*
*"Infinity of concepts" can be an infinity of gods or an infinity of possible energy increments (ruled out by Planck's law) or an infinity of (time-messed) universes*
*From "Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People" (Intuitive psychology, 5 Responses to common questions: 2 + 3):*
*"Language is not fundamental because it develops late", "language builds on ... (that builds on ... that builds on)", "Back propagation is the reason why neural nets is implausible", "we can turn the biological argument around" (but can you pay for it?), "the cue-based account leads to a problem, Bayesian theory-of-mind is better" — examples of relative arguments (relativity of fundmentality/ of comparison/ of hierarchies/ of implementations and "solutions" to problems)*
2. Any concept exists at infinity of levels / layers. You need to choose which levels exist and justify your choice (exclude other levels / layers)
*or create a layer that "doesn't" contain all the same concepts, a layer that separates or connects concepts: immortal -life- without immortal -death- (uneven update of concepts)*
Initially, all concepts are separated from each other or (backward) mixed into a homogeneous mass. You need to be able to connect and separate concepts (choose and exclude connections)("concepts" interchangeable with layers)
*With the choice of "concepts" one can compare the differentiation of (stem) cells and the emerging universe, in which symmetries are born / broken, particles begin to have different properties and forces vary (Grand Unified Theory/Supersymmetry)*
3. It is possible to distinguish "super-layers" capable of moving through ordinary layers. At the same time, they will save or lose something according to certain rules (be "preserved" or "destroyed") — they can restrict perspective shifting or break its symmetry
*Super-layer is the thing that "do (the) magic": recursion, retrocausality & chicken or the egg & free choice and more mundane things. You can compare it to Entanglement of ordinary layers*
4. This process creates "symmetries" — "symmetrical" concepts — selected concepts that are not destroyed by other selected concepts (stable). This is the process of connecting / separating concepts (delineating boundaries). This is a process of propagation (of something). This is the process of "double choice" (choose what we need to save, and where)
*It can be similar to physical symmetries, for example to Galilean relativity*
*"Symmetry" can be about transformations and scalability (a), sets and "topology" and spaces (b), or proportionality and complexity (c) and assumed layers (d, a part of scalability)(like absolute spacetime)*
*Defining a "tiger" like a bunch of particles would lead to an unstable tiger and be useless for other tigers (a), creation of an combinatorial space with 99% of useless objects (b), violation of (c) and possible assumptions of (d) — but remember, you have to believe what a tiger is and devil advocate is always possible (you fight not with logic, but with choice; exclusion by conditions is relative)*
*You can always devil advocate bad ideas to death — beat a dead horse*
5. There is a space of “infinite fractal absolutely different objects” (a space where each property has a “master”, where each object is entangled in a cocoon of its own world) — these are all kinds of symmetries and conservations
*There are objects that you can treat as... colors of light. They add up to "feature space" analog without meaningless points*
6. There are ideologies that work with concepts directly, make "double choice"
*My choice is the Principle of no denial / convenience / simplicity / existence (Optimism + humanism) — the most convenient concept (for a person / group of friends) is true and exists, the most convenient distribution of concepts, there is the most convenient level of concepts — and all true concepts are connected — this is where my "dog" begins, my fixed point, centre of my universe, center of accumulation of INCREDIBLE mass — and that doggy gonna "wag" the whole universe*
*Another way to find a fixed point is to find in which camp an innocent person can be attacked in the most vile way or "superposition of cringe". That's my Scalers. Will your actions be too cringe (and in which way?) if it turns out that you were wrong in everything? That's a deal-breaker for me (— You are making a big mistake, Mr. Joyner. — That's only if I am wrong.: Central Intelligence 2016)*
*A little bit similar way: ask if you want a universe where a strange group of people calling themselves "rationalists" can overpower simple people in love or friendship. Or their life be taken by some "Singularity"? Or AGI? Or some shadow cast on them by scientist trying to dissect their brain activities under scans? My choice is negative (I feel "soul cringe" from pity). In my childhood I dreamed to get famous to break every hypothetical imperative like "you shoud study [math]", "you should be [objective]", "you should not [believe]", "philosophy and humanities are weak" — all those sayers just ask for infinite trouble, their opinions are not symmetrical under infinite values (Poetic justice)*
*Third additional way is comparison: in one world free will exists and in the other it just seems like it exists, everything is the same but just somehow worse than could've been. I exclude the second one (also symmetry of "breathing room": you can't say that free will doesn't make sense like idea in itself i.e. totally exclude it)*
*This is like statistics, which is choice-dependent too. You can get different stats if you don't choose to treat people like monkeys, or "wave away" other people's opinions (stats differ if you choose equality or do not)*
7. Some theories are bad because they work on too few levels, give new predictions for not enough levels (sometimes new only by names)
*Consider this: Raven paradox, Pascal's Mugging, Doomsday argument, Conjunction fallacy, Veil of ignorance — I think the point of the joke is that we should study "symmetries" ("shifts") of those situations without reference to concrete math or (even) concrete arguments. They are just concrete ways to construct a symmetry, which are at least incomplete (formulated on just one of the layers)(also remember reflective oracles and the procrastination paradox)*
*Instead of quantities you can use "magnitudes", choosing to join or disjoin them by choosing (a)symmetries. By measuring probabilities of "higher-level" symmetrical objects (transcendental stats), alike in the wheel example (maybe Someone tried to use Kolmogorov complexity for defining magnitudes)*
*Quantum mechanics in some aspects does exactly "the wheel thing" to probabilities*
*Statistics is like trying to hack a layer of reality. Trying to get in the right "blob" (black ravens or even time distribution)*/
*I think some mistake necessity with (super-)choice, while analyzing "fallacies". "Slippery slope" article on wikipedia is funny, it seems like aliens discuss something they totally don't understand — even when defending. It is actually a common symmetry, and like in the same wager slopes can lead uphill*
*Is God a Taoist? I think there's a similar misunderstanding there, and the only good part is that you need free will to reject such a god, who is more like a devil... and maybe by considering many "free wills" you can prove that you need the most perfect one, just like in the wheel example (also this mortal can be unrelatable)*
*You may end up trying to "write in" already known symmetries without a motivation to do so in your own framework OR assuming and hoping that they exist and work in your framework — "Of course Utilitarianism does not lead us to brain death, because Kholmogorov comlexity" there's no [obligatory] complexity, there's your choice to be human "Of course we won't let the poor starve, because we count ..." again, it is symmetry you chosed, your idea was no more than an instrument of that symmetry "Hmm, something still doesn't work, lets change humans in the formula to better versions of them" — second joke is that I now explained why there's so many versions of such ideas and every of them is BS (they are trying to restore what they themselves irretrievably lost)*
*"The Moral Landscape" or "CEV" and "Explaining vs. explaining away" and any other sequence (eg Lawful Creativity) — is beating a dead horse and simply doesn't work, it is trying to argue a symmetry without saying you chose it (or "Einstein's Arrogance")*
8. The super-layer turns ordinary layers (/ concepts) into "niches" and dictates the rules for moving between niches, which allows you to check or look for symmetries. See item 4
*"Quantization" of thinking, kind of. This is already enough for a theory! In this theory things exists not because of a reason, but beacuse they can exist and can fit the common puzzle — in this theory new concepts are born by "empathy" i.e. abillity to expect "something more" and go to the extremes*
*You can also "quantize" probabilities*
*Without "quantization" 6 Harry's hypotheses about loss of magic are indistinguishable (if you take out specific concepts or "symmetries" ("quanta") that correspond to gaining and loosing magic: food [-] & childhood [+] /technology [-] & magic [+] /knowledge or powerfull spells [+] & loss of knowledge [-] /less kids [-] & strong parents [+] /muggles [-] & wizards [+]) — there's infinity of every concept so is infinity of hypotheses and versions of every hypotheses, you better update your concepts instead of probs. or replace probs. with concepts (quanta) — look for more useful concepts (symmetries)*
9. The super-layer gives “phenomena” and “names” weights and rules for the influence of these weights on each other. This is necessary for the "correspondence of the concept to itself" ("bond strength"). Without this, you can endlessly and eternally love people, but instantly stop considering someone as a person / do not recognize anyone as a person. Without the "bond strength", thinking would be a series of independently spinning wheels. The super-layer determines how a concept is smeared over its own versions [some “wheels” may become too loose, relative when expanding the picture of the world / when applied in a new context]
*Imagine rows of ornament pieces with symmetry patterns and how pieces of a row merge or break to fit another row (and they know what row to fit, who is to "wag") — bridges over gaps*
*Also maybe there's a connection to turbulence (Kolmogorov's theory of 1941)*
10. Some stable (under selected conditions) “smearings” are symmetric (selected) concepts. The space according to claim 5 can be represented as a space in which, when the weight of one concept is weakened, the weight of another increases (like color waves, which all add up to white color of "uniform power at all wavelengths")(such weight influences are symmetries)
*Our sensations are ripples at the very edge of the bubble of experience (on the most important layer)(re-read the wheel example if you are lost)*
*Super-level let us see abstract contrasts, as examples about edge and rows show, and some contrasts can be absolute as fixed points (eg that something is moving and someone is being deceived in "Cogito ergo sum")*
11. If a concept is not applied on an important for us layer — it is “relative” (in a bad sense). As an unsuccessful excuse. If some philosophy (or even science theory) lacks an important layer for us — it is relative (indistinguishable: like in the wheel example)
*I have to also give some examples of symmetries in logic: (related to the wheel example)*
*Uninhabited islands. One island is uninhabited because it eats inhabitants. Another type of islands is uninhabited, because the inhabitants destroy it. (An edible island or an egg island with inhabitants inside that are forced to break the shell; This is "Survivorship bias" and "Anthropic principle" symmetry) Another island is uninhabited because it consists of all the inhabitants dead*
*Inspired by Through the Looking-Glass (found in translated version). Black Queen tells Alica that this hill compared to others is a pit. But if you assume some natural symmetries you will find that this attempt to inverse the hill is impossible and can lead only to infinite fall of the entire landmass*
*White King praises Alice for seeing Nobody from such a big distance. But under a certain symmetry it is the same as seeing Nobody from a short distance*
A (related) video game. Imagine a game were AI need to keep a symmetry (for example, keep a ball near an group of creatures) with help of other symmetries (for example, changing size of the ball the more it futhers away or making landscape around creatures plane or high like a border)
My program: (try to) revolutionize neural nets architecture and mechanics. Even NNs statistics! Biophysics. Physics: check for missed ideas or make physics easy to explain. (same for Math) Chess: there exist "player styles" that looks like colored light (see points 5 and 10)
Contact people, maybe in particular: Scott Alexander (knows hypocrisy in "The noncentral fallacy"), nostalgebraist (thought about problems in statistics)
12. People propagate their will by assuming dull absolute levels such as "merciless (science) truth" or ether. Lack of awareness about that negatively biases them. They become "possesed" by particular symmetries or frameworks of expressing symmetries for their entire lives... But seed of truth outgrows all layers inevitably
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий