Conversation

1/6 Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from economics 2/6 Sufficiently institutionalized economics is indistinguishable from religion 3/6 Sufficiently conservative religion is indistinguishable from politics ...
4
67
4/6 Sufficiently disinterested politics is indistinguishable from philosophy 5/6 Sufficiently thoughtful philosophy is indistinguishable from instrument-making 6/6 Sufficiently clever instrument-making is indistinguishable from science This is Clarke’s Circle of Life of Mind
1
41
Replying to
OODA loops govern the transition between closed-would iteration with REPL (read-eval-print loop) and open-world iteration with POHL (probe-observe hypothesize loop). Basically when to open up your model rather than merely trying to debug it.
2
7
There is a qualitative difference between epistemic and ontological feedback. Achieving ontological expansion while trying to debug a model is rare. Eg: Dirac concluding antiparticles must exist from symmetries in equations being studied in a math REPL.
1
5
Math is interestingly on the edge between closed and open world. You can make random unexpected ontological discoveries (eg Mandelbrot set) while operating within what feels like a closed world.
1
7
POHLs and instruments are “real world” in a way REPLs are not. They embody boundary intelligence as opposed to interior. Cf
Quote Tweet
1/ I'd like to make up a theory of intelligence based on a 2-element ontology: boundary and interior intelligence
Show this thread
1
3
Time is the essential dimension separating closed and open worlds. Roughly in open worlds you must pay a price in proportion to the degree you’re not operating in real time. This is especially clear with simulations. Real-time sims race against whatever they are modeling.
5
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more