Other interesting phenomenology that came up and could potentially be accommodated in the cost-to-make-false definition include bugs, dissent, alt interpretations of a hard thing, smooth vs striated uses of hard things.
Conversation
A general weak point is that the cast/contents distinction is probably theoretically fragile. Medium/message coupling effects, form/content logic bombs like godel sentences… but you could probably get a folk notion of hardness to a usable state, like Taleb’s antifragility
1
1
Replying to
That was one of the things not clear from the article. Clearly you had an implicit distinction in mind like a contract vs it’s state. A question came up about how for eg the NFL roster of teams and game schedule is “hard” but not in same sense as football rules. Contents vs cast.
1
Replying to
hm, not sure I follow yet.
In my terminology, casts are just "a description of a future state of the world", along with a "measurement" of the hardness of the cast (cost, or probability)
1
Replying to
yeah, it's very much work in progress/in public - probably going to be writing ~this for the next 5 years
appreciate the comments!
2
2
Replying to
ok check this out
Quote Tweet
New free studio post, Future Tables studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/future-tables


