Conversation

Domestic spaces are approximate examples of exactly constrained spaces. A place for everything and everything in its place. There is a unique solution but it’s a satisficing one. The optimization problem is degenerate. Everything is rendered unique by the context.
Quote Tweet
Are there spaces besides domestic ones where most things don’t have names or identifiers but are referred to by role, identifying attribute, or being the unique instance of a class present in the context? “The big pot” “The old armchair” “The car” “The cat’s blanket”
1
4
Only systems that are underconstrained can be meaningfully optimized. The optimum is also a stable equilibrium of the utility function which can be destabilized and stabilized continuously. Performance degraded smoothly away from the optimum.
1
Exactly constrained systems cannot be meaningfully optimized or stabilized. They can only only be sufficiently deranged to be “broken” by de-satisficing 1+ constraints. Solution is an “arrangement”. There may be multiple satisficing arrangements among which you’re indifferent.
1
1
A symptom of such a space is that things don’t have names or serial number type identifiers. The satisficing arrangement is sufficiently determinative of states of all components that you don’t need names/ids. Name/number ids are a sign of underconstrained optimized spaces.
1
1
When a utility function picks out a unique element from a satisficing set, that picking process induces a cardinal ordering among elements with multiplicity. Those then form the basis of names/ids. Think of a utility function as creating a “status” competition among elements.
Replying to
2 people, 2 chairs = “my chair” and “your chair” 2 people, 10 chairs = “best chair, second best chair...” or a set of 10 names.
1