4 ms·

> All models are wrong. Some are useful. While this may hold true in almost every case. Just as truth is not absolute, neither is "wrongness". Furthermore, th

> All models are wrong. Some are useful. While this may hold true in almost every case. Just as truth is not absolute, neither is "wrongness". Furthermore, there exists some model which is neither right nor wrong[1] [1] https://publications.recursion.is https://publications.recursion.is "When all contradictions are resolved what will be left is - an unprovable truth"

ukj 5y ago
Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom? Why didn’t you choose dialetheism? Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Aristotle? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
- nmaleki 5y ago
  https://recursion.is https://recursion.is has a running list of quotes, one of those quotes is "True and False" - this is the central idea behind dialetheism and is an integral part to the Recursion Convergence Conjecture. I have already recorded audio for a video on the topic soon to be released on https://recursion.is/youtube https://recursion.is/youtube
  - ukj 5y ago
    Let me generalise. There are systems of reasoning which don’t only concern themselves with Booleans (true and false). There are infinitely many non-Boolean types possible in type theory. Human constructions/models have many other interesting and desirable qualities/properties beyond “truth” and “falsity”. Mathematicians/Logicians/Computer scientists are deeply interested in understanding those semantic properties. Recursion is one of those properties studied. It is a foundational concept, not the be all - end all. Convergence and divergence are another example of interesting semantic properties. They are studied in bifurcation theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram Whatever your conjecture you are only constructing a lens through which you are interpreting the world.
    - nmaleki 5y ago
      Yes. I fully agree with all of these points. Why do you point these specific ideas out? I do not, yet, understand the purpose behind your words
      - ukj 5y ago
        Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you. From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough. In particular - the purpose behind my words is to understand why you are constraining thought/expression to merely recursive convergence and to the detriment of recursive divergence. Why the arbitrary specificity? In general - I don’t understand the purpose of your conjecture either.
        nmaleki 5y ago
        The insight you have given me today amazes me. My original paper was not titled Recursion "Convergence" Conjecture, it was titled "Quantum Recursion Postulate". I later realized I was incorrectly conflating popular use of the word "quantum" with "superposition". So, I re-titled my paper. This felt like a good decision. Convergence is one of the central ideas to the paper-I want others to disprove the paper to converge on a solution. The focus of my paper was not quantum mechanics, nor was the paper describing only a small system. A understandable mistake for someone who has no formal physics background, and has only conversed with those who do. Of course, this re-titling had the now obvious effect that I lost the diverging aspect of the paper. To further illustrate how I managed to damage the original meaning behind the paper, I will show you perhaps the only proof I have that my conjecture also includes divergence: "The more information considered, the more likely the solution"[1] "Once all is explained, there will always be more perspectives you can attempt to explain that which is already explained from. There will always be new layers to explain previous layers with. Seeking these new layers is what is important, as you can use them to help others understand what you already do. These others, which may want explanations, will stem from these new layers and only understand these new layers."[2] Looks like I need to change one of my scripts (which I already recorded the audio for >.>) and re-title my paper to the "Recursion Conjecture". Thank you! [2] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/It+is+what+it+is https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/It+is+what+it+is

ukj 5y ago

Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom? Why didn’t you choose dialetheism? Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Aristotle? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

nmaleki 5y ago
https://recursion.is https://recursion.is has a running list of quotes, one of those quotes is "True and False" - this is the central idea behind dialetheism and is an integral part to the Recursion Convergence Conjecture. I have already recorded audio for a video on the topic soon to be released on https://recursion.is/youtube https://recursion.is/youtube
- ukj 5y ago
  Let me generalise. There are systems of reasoning which don’t only concern themselves with Booleans (true and false). There are infinitely many non-Boolean types possible in type theory. Human constructions/models have many other interesting and desirable qualities/properties beyond “truth” and “falsity”. Mathematicians/Logicians/Computer scientists are deeply interested in understanding those semantic properties. Recursion is one of those properties studied. It is a foundational concept, not the be all - end all. Convergence and divergence are another example of interesting semantic properties. They are studied in bifurcation theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram Whatever your conjecture you are only constructing a lens through which you are interpreting the world.
  - nmaleki 5y ago
    Yes. I fully agree with all of these points. Why do you point these specific ideas out? I do not, yet, understand the purpose behind your words
    - ukj 5y ago
      Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you. From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough. In particular - the purpose behind my words is to understand why you are constraining thought/expression to merely recursive convergence and to the detriment of recursive divergence. Why the arbitrary specificity? In general - I don’t understand the purpose of your conjecture either.
      - nmaleki 5y ago
        The insight you have given me today amazes me. My original paper was not titled Recursion "Convergence" Conjecture, it was titled "Quantum Recursion Postulate". I later realized I was incorrectly conflating popular use of the word "quantum" with "superposition". So, I re-titled my paper. This felt like a good decision. Convergence is one of the central ideas to the paper-I want others to disprove the paper to converge on a solution. The focus of my paper was not quantum mechanics, nor was the paper describing only a small system. A understandable mistake for someone who has no formal physics background, and has only conversed with those who do. Of course, this re-titling had the now obvious effect that I lost the diverging aspect of the paper. To further illustrate how I managed to damage the original meaning behind the paper, I will show you perhaps the only proof I have that my conjecture also includes divergence: "The more information considered, the more likely the solution"[1] "Once all is explained, there will always be more perspectives you can attempt to explain that which is already explained from. There will always be new layers to explain previous layers with. Seeking these new layers is what is important, as you can use them to help others understand what you already do. These others, which may want explanations, will stem from these new layers and only understand these new layers."[2] Looks like I need to change one of my scripts (which I already recorded the audio for >.>) and re-title my paper to the "Recursion Conjecture". Thank you! [2] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/It+is+what+it+is https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/It+is+what+it+is