11 ms·

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
    Well, I am glad you are finding my commentary helpful but I am still no closer to understanding the reasons for your arbitrary choices. Why is it a “recursion conjecture”? Why isn’t it a “Corecursion conjecture”?
    - nmaleki 5y ago
      https://recursioncorecursion.is https://recursioncorecursion.is does not have the same marketing effect that https://recursion.is https://recursion.is does :P Additionally, I admit that I was not aware of corecursion prior to this conversation. I have been referring to the two as the same concept this entire time. I do not have access to all that is knowable. I did not go to the same universities/* you did that taught this concept. To further illustrate this, "corecursion" has About 18,100 results on Google. "Recursion" has About 20,900,000 results. All YouTube videos on the subject have sub-1k views; since your comment, I have watched many of these videos. I am prepared to say that corecursion is an integral part to the conjecture; just as important as recursion. Lastly, it is my understanding that they are, in a way, each other. Ask yourself how you define both and then ask yourself what is the major difference between the two. Are you certain that your definition of both is absolute? Could it be that one could stem from the other in some case? I'll give you a hint, I am being entirely rhetorical. They do stem from one another. Where this stemming-process has *no origin*[3] in an *infinite* system - neither idea can be seen as the "top-level" idea. They are both crucial. This conclusion may bother you, and I will release a more rigorous argument soon. Corecursion will be a/the topic of one/all of my future videos. PS: This conversation allowed me to think I understand how type theory integrates with mathematics, to my own personal plague of not internally using concepts I don't think I fully understand [3] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/Origin https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/Origin

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
  Well, I am glad you are finding my commentary helpful but I am still no closer to understanding the reasons for your arbitrary choices. Why is it a “recursion conjecture”? Why isn’t it a “Corecursion conjecture”?
  - nmaleki 5y ago
    https://recursioncorecursion.is https://recursioncorecursion.is does not have the same marketing effect that https://recursion.is https://recursion.is does :P Additionally, I admit that I was not aware of corecursion prior to this conversation. I have been referring to the two as the same concept this entire time. I do not have access to all that is knowable. I did not go to the same universities/* you did that taught this concept. To further illustrate this, "corecursion" has About 18,100 results on Google. "Recursion" has About 20,900,000 results. All YouTube videos on the subject have sub-1k views; since your comment, I have watched many of these videos. I am prepared to say that corecursion is an integral part to the conjecture; just as important as recursion. Lastly, it is my understanding that they are, in a way, each other. Ask yourself how you define both and then ask yourself what is the major difference between the two. Are you certain that your definition of both is absolute? Could it be that one could stem from the other in some case? I'll give you a hint, I am being entirely rhetorical. They do stem from one another. Where this stemming-process has *no origin*[3] in an *infinite* system - neither idea can be seen as the "top-level" idea. They are both crucial. This conclusion may bother you, and I will release a more rigorous argument soon. Corecursion will be a/the topic of one/all of my future videos. PS: This conversation allowed me to think I understand how type theory integrates with mathematics, to my own personal plague of not internally using concepts I don't think I fully understand [3] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/Origin https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/Origin