Sahil
No content on this page itself — see linked references below.
2 linked references
June 28th, 2024
- convo w Sahil & Michael "Valentine" Smith
- from Sahil >
- > Second law: You cannot expect actual order (stable structure) to arise spontaneously. If you see it, there must have been a controlled process lurking behind the scenes which involves entropy production in the larger naturally unfolding context.
- > An example would be: A priori, if I tossed a 100 coins and they all came up heads, or if all the gas molecules were repeatedly going to one corner of the room, you'd be surprised, and consider it a thermodynamic miracle. However, if you were more careful, you'd notice how this is an open system, and point out some systematic force that biases it towards a "low entropy" region, producing a bunch of heat in the process, in accordance with the Second Law over the whole system.
- > Cosecond law: You cannot expect deep caring (stable commitment) to arise via control/force. If you see it, there must have been organicness/freedom lurking behind the scenes which involves connection, even in contingently-arranged controlled situations.
- > An example: You and I might have met in order to work on a project; our relationship might be purely instrumental and it would be surprising if it extended beyond into true love. But not really: it's possible that we have liberated interactions within that container that allow back and forth openness and integration of our more personal sides, which is in line with the cosecond law.
- MS > I directly perceive something about the 2nd law of thermodynamics
- I don't believe it
- (struck that I have some sense of this wrt 2nd law, but I feel like insofar as I've traced the proof it's pretty loose)
- Sahil > ergodicity, minus-first-law
- Sahil > causal bias in our understandings
- science, progress
- "gears" understanding
- reductionism
- bayes theorem
- likelihoods describe things that are compact, causal, modularly defined
- very good for atomistic, causally-defined things
- posteriors are complex, depend on lots of factors
- duals
- LCM <=> GCF
- cartesian ? sets <=> disjoint union sets
- MO > same fact-ness? like integrals & differentials
- S > yes, theorems for free
- S > can't predict what chess grandmaster will do, but can predict he'll win
- MS > but that's a statistical thing
- (I think that that's still viewing it in the causal frame. in the telic frame it looks more like "no, it's because he wants to win and can")
- 2 claims:
- is it possible to dualize?
- if so, what does it look like?
- (but there's a choice of dual, depending on how you structure the first category)
- S > thesis by Yoshihiro Maruyama
- meaning and duality
- (beyond chapter 1 not very readable)
- we're very good with likelihoods, not so much colikelihoods (which involve stable spirit, commitment, etc... rather than stable substrate)
May 29th, 2024
- life-mind continuity
- eons-old religion of life
- maybe send a draft of my "no H1" critiques of David Deutsch
- metaphysics of freedom
- dual of 2nd law
- minus first law = processes
- working on building a research context where mattering is allowed