Hello LW, as I've mentioned I'm starting a blog, here's the intro post!
Intro
0.0.1 Hello, welcome to (the main sequence of) my website.
0.0.2 Its purpose is to collect various observations and thoughts of mine, centered around the question of....
0.1 Why these laws of physics?
0.1.1 Of the various things humanity has learned about the nature of reality, perhaps the most striking is the discovery of the laws of physics: a set of computable mathematical rules which govern almost all of reality as it's known to us. Even the human mind seems to be the product of physical processes in the brain.
0.1.2 A further striking discovery of the 20th century was computational universality: there is a relatively low threshold beyond which a model of computation is capable of emulating any other.
0.1.2.1 Combined with 0.1.1, this seems to imply that all of reality can be thought of as a relatively simple form of computation, perhaps a Turing machine with a small number of states.
0.1.3 Or can it? Although the laws of physics seem to be computable, they have a mathematical structure that goes far beyond an ordinary Turing machine. They take place in continuous space and time, have manifold conservation laws and group theoretic symmetries. Perhaps most weirdly of all, they are quantum mechanical in nature.
0.1.4 This raises the question: why? If reality "could" have been a more generic Turing machine or a cellular automaton, why isn't it? Wait, or does this question even make sense? What does "why" even mean here? These questions will be the subject of this blog.
0.1.5 To give a brief preview of my answer, I believe there is a reason. The world contains various high-level structures recursively "built atop" the physical laws; the laws serve as a sort of "base case", or a consistency condition, and their mathematical form facilitates this. So our task is to understand the form of these structures.
0.1.5.1 The parts of physics most relevant to my account are (non-equilibrium) thermodynamics; chaos, the amplification of small fluctuations to large scales; and quantum foundations, in particular "redundant records"-style solutions to the preferred basis problem.
0.2 Strategic considerations
0.2.1 I believe in (sometimes) trying to do the best thing you can do. So why is writing this website the best thing I can do?
0.2.2 As a general matter, improving human understanding of reality seems good.
0.2.3 It's plausible that superintelligence will be developed soon. If this is true, actions and texts chiefly matter to the extent that they affect this development. For the most part this text seems likely irrelevant here. But if it succeeds in its goal of improving the overall world-model of its readers, this could include AIs.
0.2.3.1 Now, is that good or bad? On net I think it seems good. Current AIs seem decently aligned, and relying more on human culture seems correlated with alignment. Improving AI philosophical understanding could be good regardless of alignment per se. Of course, it might also be bad.
0.2.4 Relative to other things I could do, writing about the stuff in this website is especially unlikely for anyone else to do.
0.3 Outline, recommended reading order. AI usage policy.
0.3.0 If you're basically on board with the "why these laws of physics" question, and in a rush, you may wish to skip to section 2, then section 4. If you're really in a rush just section 2.5 and section 4.
0.3.1 Otherwise, section 1 will present my picture of how "philosophy" works, which I define as the practice of developing concepts at the highest meta-level. I think philosophy can often best be practiced by engaging with the details of the world, and in particular "empirical flywheels" of the sort used in math and science. I will also argue that having better high-level concepts, far from being a useless game, can be maximally impactful for engaging with the world.
0.3.2 Section 2 will collect and give a brief overview of various phenomena in physics which I think are of particular relevance in giving rise to various high-level structures in our universe. In particular, thermodynamic properties like reversibility and conservation of energy; chaotic dynamics blowing up small fluctuations to macroscopic scales; and theories of quantum foundations based on proliferation of redundant records and/or giant measurements at the end of time.
0.3.3 Section 3 will survey some "high-level" structures which I think have analogous properties to the phenomena studied in section 2. Among them: dynamics of "consciousness" in the brain; financial markets; interpersonal attention; the transformer architecture. The common theme is "structures in which many 'small' things may broadcast to a global state". I will also describe an "approach to equilibrium" that happens in these & related domains.
0.3.4 Section 4 will attempt to generalize the ideas of sections 2 and 3 into an overall description of the world. Reality is composed of interconnected "frames" with a past and future, a set of measurements and things being measured. The universe is gradually expanding and cooling, approaching equilibrium but never exactly reaching it, branching into alternate possible futures. The past and future have an inherent flexibility which causes more harmony between them than you might expect. Nevertheless some residual disharmony always remains, and is in fact necessary for existence to continue.
0.3.5 Section 5 will examine the implications of the worldview of section 4. What actions does it recommend? Can we say anything about consciousness, or valence on its basis? How can we act in accordance with our values -- actually, what are values? I can't really answer any of these questions but I have some things to say which are somewhat skew to the usual discourse on these topics. I will also present a brief sketchy theory of how meditative/religious experiences manifest in the brain.
0.3.6 Finally section 6 will present some takeaways and recommended further actions. Ultimately the worldview presented in the earlier sections is pretty sketchy; IMO its main use is suggesting some novel "flywheels" to turn which might suggest more detailed and rigorous abstractions.
0.3.7 AI usage policy: AI was not used in the conception or development of any of the ideas presented here, nor for any writing. I may use AI to critique drafts or to produce code for toy models. AI was however quite helpful in setting up the formatting of the site.
Hello LW, as I've mentioned I'm starting a blog, here's the intro post!
Intro
0.0.1 Hello, welcome to (the main sequence of) my website.
0.0.2 Its purpose is to collect various observations and thoughts of mine, centered around the question of....
0.1 Why these laws of physics?
0.1.1 Of the various things humanity has learned about the nature of reality, perhaps the most striking is the discovery of the laws of physics: a set of computable mathematical rules which govern almost all of reality as it's known to us. Even the human mind seems to be the product of physical processes in the brain.
0.1.2 A further striking discovery of the 20th century was computational universality: there is a relatively low threshold beyond which a model of computation is capable of emulating any other.
0.1.3 Or can it? Although the laws of physics seem to be computable, they have a mathematical structure that goes far beyond an ordinary Turing machine. They take place in continuous space and time, have manifold conservation laws and group theoretic symmetries. Perhaps most weirdly of all, they are quantum mechanical in nature.
0.1.4 This raises the question: why? If reality "could" have been a more generic Turing machine or a cellular automaton, why isn't it? Wait, or does this question even make sense? What does "why" even mean here? These questions will be the subject of this blog.
0.1.5 To give a brief preview of my answer, I believe there is a reason. The world contains various high-level structures recursively "built atop" the physical laws; the laws serve as a sort of "base case", or a consistency condition, and their mathematical form facilitates this. So our task is to understand the form of these structures.
0.2 Strategic considerations
0.2.1 I believe in (sometimes) trying to do the best thing you can do. So why is writing this website the best thing I can do?
0.2.2 As a general matter, improving human understanding of reality seems good.
0.2.3 It's plausible that superintelligence will be developed soon. If this is true, actions and texts chiefly matter to the extent that they affect this development. For the most part this text seems likely irrelevant here. But if it succeeds in its goal of improving the overall world-model of its readers, this could include AIs.
0.2.4 Relative to other things I could do, writing about the stuff in this website is especially unlikely for anyone else to do.
0.3 Outline, recommended reading order. AI usage policy.
0.3.0 If you're basically on board with the "why these laws of physics" question, and in a rush, you may wish to skip to section 2, then section 4. If you're really in a rush just section 2.5 and section 4.
0.3.1 Otherwise, section 1 will present my picture of how "philosophy" works, which I define as the practice of developing concepts at the highest meta-level. I think philosophy can often best be practiced by engaging with the details of the world, and in particular "empirical flywheels" of the sort used in math and science. I will also argue that having better high-level concepts, far from being a useless game, can be maximally impactful for engaging with the world.
0.3.2 Section 2 will collect and give a brief overview of various phenomena in physics which I think are of particular relevance in giving rise to various high-level structures in our universe. In particular, thermodynamic properties like reversibility and conservation of energy; chaotic dynamics blowing up small fluctuations to macroscopic scales; and theories of quantum foundations based on proliferation of redundant records and/or giant measurements at the end of time.
0.3.3 Section 3 will survey some "high-level" structures which I think have analogous properties to the phenomena studied in section 2. Among them: dynamics of "consciousness" in the brain; financial markets; interpersonal attention; the transformer architecture. The common theme is "structures in which many 'small' things may broadcast to a global state". I will also describe an "approach to equilibrium" that happens in these & related domains.
0.3.4 Section 4 will attempt to generalize the ideas of sections 2 and 3 into an overall description of the world. Reality is composed of interconnected "frames" with a past and future, a set of measurements and things being measured. The universe is gradually expanding and cooling, approaching equilibrium but never exactly reaching it, branching into alternate possible futures. The past and future have an inherent flexibility which causes more harmony between them than you might expect. Nevertheless some residual disharmony always remains, and is in fact necessary for existence to continue.
0.3.5 Section 5 will examine the implications of the worldview of section 4. What actions does it recommend? Can we say anything about consciousness, or valence on its basis? How can we act in accordance with our values -- actually, what are values? I can't really answer any of these questions but I have some things to say which are somewhat skew to the usual discourse on these topics. I will also present a brief sketchy theory of how meditative/religious experiences manifest in the brain.
0.3.6 Finally section 6 will present some takeaways and recommended further actions. Ultimately the worldview presented in the earlier sections is pretty sketchy; IMO its main use is suggesting some novel "flywheels" to turn which might suggest more detailed and rigorous abstractions.
0.3.7 AI usage policy: AI was not used in the conception or development of any of the ideas presented here, nor for any writing. I may use AI to critique drafts or to produce code for toy models. AI was however quite helpful in setting up the formatting of the site.