3 ms·
Yes, I mean exactly this type of insight. Basically taking a digital photo with a camera technically also just picks out the "address" of your current environme
by bonoboTP 1y ago
Yes, I mean exactly this type of insight. Basically taking a digital photo with a camera technically also just picks out the "address" of your current environment within the space of all images. Any 4K 2-hour-length feature film in a digital format is also just an address in the space of all possible videos. The director, the actors, the whole crew did all that work in order to select that point from the space of possibilities, they didn't "create" anything. That movie already existed.
Of course this is silly, but interesting nonetheless. And we routinely speak about such high-dimensional spaces in research and engineering. Or we can imagine optimization as traversing a pre-existing search space. It may be structured as a graph or perhaps a Euclidean space. And in that space we can imagine a loss surface, that sits there in peace all along, with its global minimum somewhere. And instead of "constructing" a solution, we are simply hiking in this space and trying to spot that valley. But this is a bit fictional. We never physically "instantiate" this surface. It's an imagined abstraction. In reality we just have a vector and some rules as to how we change that vector. But we can imagine those changes to be movements in an imagined space.
It's like the idea that the sculptor doesn't create the sculpture, the sculpture was there all along, he just had to remove the superfluous matter to reveal what was already there (i.e. the atoms belonging to the final sculpture).
The most interesting thing is kind of on the border, between these absurdly large spaces and the more manageable ones that are feasible to enumerate.
Another similar mindblow thing was when I forgot the password to a file that I encrypted. It's a fascinating thing that the bit pattern on the disk is functionally random now, and cracking it would take longer than the age of the universe. But if only I knew the password, it would only take just a second. There is a definite sequence of keystrokes I can execute to bring the universe in a state where the content will appear on my screen, it's so close, yet it's so-so far if you don't remember the password. Just a little difference in your brain state and it flips from trivial to hopeless.
PS, if you like thinking about such things, I recommend Meta-Math by Gregory Chaitin, it's very fun (providing an address VS constructing the thing is basically the gist of algorithmic information theory).
- matheusmoreira 1y agoYeah I agree with you. > It's like the idea that the sculptor doesn't create the sculpture, the sculpture was there all along, he just had to remove the superfluous matter to reveal what was already there (i.e. the atoms belonging to the final sculpture). I understand this argument but I have far more trouble applying this logic to real things. I'm not sure the same logic applies once the information is instantiated in the real world as a physical object. I haven't thought very deeply about it. I think the true sculpture exists only in the ideal world and the real world object is merely an approximation of it. > Of course this is silly It's an existential issue for me. At some point it became a political issue. I became a copyright abolitionist because of this insight. Copyright is logically reducible to monopolistic ownership of numbers. The sheer absurdity of it led me to reject the very idea of intellectual property as delusional nonsense.
- saghm 1y agoI'm not sure the law has ever been concerned with logical reducibility. Context that can't easily been defined objectively has always been a part of legal systems, and arguably is a feature rather than a bug. Stuff like the "reasonable person" standard are intentionally flawed concepts that allow laws to exist without needing to define every possible permutation of human behavior up front. This obviously doesn't mean that you won't necessarily look at everything and decide to be an anarchist because of how convoluted it all is, but I don't think that being mathematically inconsistent is particularly unique to copyright in the legal system.
- bonoboTP 1y agoExactly, it's a common failure mode for math/programming-minded people when encountering the law. But the law is not like a compiler, mechanically following some fully-specified set of rules. The legal system is rather the spiritual successor of the original "system" where a wise Solomon-like elder would adjugate the issue based on their best judgment and intuition and customs, ideally seeking peace and social satisfaction and future harmony. Codified law channels this into some more pre-shaped form, but the fuel of the legal system is still the human judgment and common sense at the core. Often the law basically just prompts and nudges the judgment of the jurors or judge to a certain direction, but it can't account for all corner cases. The nerd mind asks ok ok but what if X, where do you draw the sharp line between X and Y? It doesn't matter. If it comes up, a court will decide it based on all available common sense and the implicit values of the culture. In the cases where someone seemingly gets away with "rules-lawyering", then it's not purely their genius logic-brain that wins, but there is some kind of slanted playing field that's not really available to you. Of course the line between "annoying rules-lawyering based on literal interpretation of technicalities that obviously nobody intended to be interpreted so" and something that was not anticipated initially but does fit within the rules. This decision itself is based on judgment and intuition. In life, sometimes coming up with a "technically works" thing is rewarded and lauded (math proofs, pathological counterexamples, cracking an encryption library via side-channel attacks), other times you get an eye-roll and that's obviously cheating and wasn't meant (e.g. courts of law and fun at parties).
- 1y ago