Right. It’s common that old theories get changed. That there is piecemeal improvement of existing knowledge, rather than outright replacement.
It is my claim that this is not a process of change, it is a total replacement. It will happen that if the old theory had any merit at all then some of its predictions will be identical to those made by the new one.
There’s some good examples of this from programming. For example, you can design a program which is more modular: it has separated, isolated parts. Then later the parts can be individually reused. This is good! There’s no tradeoffs involved here with what output you get from the program—this issue is orthogonal to output.
If my claim is correct then all theories are perfectly modular. A replacement thoery may have an entirely different explanation, but it can freely take any subset of the old theory’s predictions.
Efficiency of algorithms (space and speed both) is a non-predictive issue, and it’s important, but it’s not what I was talking about at all. It’s ground that others have covered plenty. That’s why I specifically disqualified that concern in my hypothetical.
I was using efficiency as a quick synonym for all such concerns, to save time and space.
No, nothing like that at all.
Fine, if we have a new theory that generates very slightly worse predictions, but is less modular, would you advocate replacement.
If my claim is correct then all theories are perfectly modular.
Do you think all computer programs are perfectly modular? What is it that programmers are learning when they read books on modular design and change their coding style?
I was using efficiency as a quick synonym for all such concerns, to save time and space.
Well OK. I didn’t know that. I don’t think you should though b/c efficiency is already the name of a small number of well known concerns, and the ones I’m talking about are separate.
Fine, if we have a new theory that generates very slightly worse predictions, but is less modular, would you advocate replacement.
I think this question is misleading. The answer is something like: keep both, and use them for different purposes. If you want to make predictions, use the theory currently best at that. If you want to do research, the more modular one might be a more promising starting point and might surpass the other in the future.
It is my claim that this is not a process of change, it is a total replacement. It will happen that if the old theory had any merit at all then some of its predictions will be identical to those made by the new one.
In physics, QM retains many ideas from classical physics. Put it this way: a person trained in classical physics doesn’t have to start over to learn QM. There are lots of ways they are related and his pre-existing knowledge remains useful. This is why even today classical physics is still taught (usually first) at universities. It hasn’t been totally replaced. It’s not just that some of its predictions are retained (they are only retained as quick approximations in limited sets of circumstances, btw. by and large, technically speaking, they are false. and taught anyway), it’s that ways of thinking about physics, and approaching physics problems, are retained. people need knowledge other than predictions such as how to think like physicist. while classical physics predictions were largely not retained, some other aspects largely were retained.
BTW speaking of physics, are you aware of the debate about the many worlds interpretation, the bohmian interpretation, the shut up and calculate interpretation, the copenhagan interpretation, and so on? None of these debates about about prediction. They are all about the explanatory interpretation (or lack there of, for the shut up and calculate school), and the debates are between people who agree on the math and predictions.
Do you think all computer programs are perfectly modular? What is it that programmers are learning when they read books on modular design and change their coding style?
They are learning to write computer programs, which are not necessarily perfectly modular. Computer programs and scientific theories are different things and work in different ways.
I think this question is misleading. The answer is something like: keep both, and use them for different purposes. If you want to make predictions, use the theory currently best at that. If you want to do research, the more modular one might be a more promising starting point and might surpass the other in the future.
Are you imagining a scenario something like Ptolemy’s astronomy versus Copernican astronomy during the days when the latter still assumed the planets moved in perfect circles?
In that case I can sort of see your point, the latter was a more promising direction for future research while the former generated better predictions. The former deserved a massive complexity penalty of course, but it may still have come out on top in the Bayesian calculation.
Sadly, there will occasionally be times when you do everything right but still get the wrong answer. Still, there is a Bayesian way to deal with this sort of thing without giving up the focus on predictions. Yudkowsky’s Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation goes into it.
In physics, QM retains many ideas from classical physics. Put it this way: a person trained in classical physics doesn’t have to start over to learn QM. There are lots of ways they are related and his pre-existing knowledge remains useful. This is why even today classical physics is still taught (usually first) at universities. It hasn’t been totally replaced. It’s not just that some of its predictions are retained (they are only retained as quick approximations in limited sets of circumstances, btw. by and large, technically speaking, they are false. and taught anyway), it’s that ways of thinking about physics, and approaching physics problems, are retained. people need knowledge other than predictions such as how to think like physicist. while classical physics predictions were largely not retained, some other aspects largely were retained.
That may be the case, it doesn’t mean that when designing a theory I should waste any concern on “should I try to include general principles which may be useful to future theories”. Thinking like that is likely to generate a lot of rubbish. Thinking “what is happening here, and what simple mathematical explanation can I find for it?” is the only way to go.
BTW speaking of physics, are you aware of the debate about the many worlds interpretation, the bohmian interpretation, the shut up and calculate interpretation, the copenhagan interpretation, and so on? None of these debates about about prediction. They are all about the explanatory interpretation (or lack there of, for the shut up and calculate school), and the debates are between people who agree on the math and predictions.
Yes, I am. There are some empirical prediction differences, for instance, we might or might not be able to create quantum superpositions at increasingly large scales. In general, I say just pick the mathematically simplest and leave it at that.
You don’t need to resort to QM for an example of that dilemma, “do objects vanish when we stop looking at them?” is another such debate, but ultimately it doesn’t make much difference either way so I say just assume they don’t since its mathematically simpler.
Edit:
Thinking about this some more, I can see the virtue of deliberately spending some time thinking about explanations, and keeping a record of such explanations even if they are attached to theories that make sub-par predictions.
This should all be kept separate from the actual business of science. Prediction should also remain the target, the job of explanations is merely a means towards that end.
Double Edit:
I just realised that I wrote do where I meant don’t for objects vanishing. That completely changes the meaning of the paragraph. Crap.
You don’t need to resort to QM for an example of that dilemma, “do objects vanish when we stop looking at them?” is another such debate, but ultimately it doesn’t make much difference either way so I say just assume they do since its mathematically simpler.
Assuming that objects do vanish when you stop looking at them is much simpler?
This should all be kept separate from the actual business of science
Part of the business of science is to create successively better explanations of the world we live in. What its nature is, and so on.
Or maybe you will call that philosophy. If you do, it will be the case that many scientists are “philosophers” too. In the past, I would have said most of them. But instrumentalism started getting rather popular last century.
I wonder where you draw the line with your instrumentalism. For example, do you think the positivists were mistaken? If so, what are your arguments against them?
I do think the positivists went too far. They failed to realise that we can make predictions about things which we can never test. We can never evaluate these predictions, and we can never update our models on the basis of them, but we can still make them in the same way as we make any other predictions.
For example, consider the claim “a pink rhinoceros rides a unicycle around the Andromeda galaxy, he travels much faster than light and so completes a whole circuit of the galaxy every 42 hours. He is, of course, far too small for our telescopes to see.”
The positivist says “meaningless!”
I say “meaningful, very high probability of being false”
Another thing they shouldn’t have dismissed is counterfactuals. As Pearl showed, questions about counterfactuals can be reduced to Bayesian questions of fact.
Part of the business of science is to create successively better explanations of the world we live in. What its nature is, and so on.
I sympathise with this. To some extent I may have been exaggerating my own position in my last few posts, it happens to me occasionally. I do think that predictions are the only way of entangling your beliefs with reality, of creating a state of the world where what you believe is causally affected by what is true. Without that you have no way to attain a map that reflects the territory, any epistemology which claims you do is guilty of making stuff up.
1) It can be phrased as a prediction. “I predict if someone had no way to evaluate their predictions based on evidence they would have no way of attaining a map that reflects the territory. They would have no way of attaining a belief-set that works better in this world than in the average of all possible worlds”.
2) It is a mathematical statement, or at any rate the logical implication of a mathematical statement, and thus is probably true in all possible worlds so I am not trying to entangle it with the territory.
I understand, but disagree. The point I have been trying to make is that it does.
My original claim was that an agent’s outcome was determined solely by that agent’s predictions and the external world in which that agent lived. If you define a theory so that its predictive content is a strict subset of all the predictions which can be derived from it then yes, its predictive content is not all that matters, the other predictions matter as well.
It nonetheless remains the case that what happens to an agent is determined by that agent’s predictions. You need to understand that theories are not fundamentally Bayesian concepts, so it is much better to argue Bayes at either the statement-level or the agent-level than the theory-level.
In addition, I think our debate is starting to annoy everyone else here. There have been times when the entire recent comments bar is filled with comments from one of us, which is considered bad form.
“do objects vanish when we stop looking at them?” is another such debate, but ultimately it doesn’t make much difference either way so I say just assume they do since its mathematically simpler.
This kind of attitude is what we see as the anti-thesis of philosophy, and of understanding the world.
When people try to invent new theories in physics, they need to understand things. For example, will they want to use math that models objects that frequently blink in and out of existence, or objects that don’t do that? Both ways might make the same predictions for all measurements humans can do, but they lead to different research directions. The MWI vs Bohm/etc stuff is similar: it leads to different research directions for what one thinks would be an important advance in physics, a promising place to look for a successor theory, and so on. As an example, Deutsch got interested in fungibility because of his way of understanding physics. That may or may not be the right direction to go—depending on if his way of thinking about physics is right—but the point is it concretely matters even though it’s not an issue of prediction.
They are learning to write computer programs, which are not necessarily perfectly modular. Computer programs and scientific theories are different things and work in different ways.
Computer programs are a kind of knowledge, like any other, which has an organizational structure, like any other knowledge.
That may be the case, it doesn’t mean that when designing a theory I should waste any concern on “should I try to include general principles which may be useful to future theories”. Thinking like that is likely to generate a lot of rubbish.
That is not how you achieve good design. That’s the wrong way to go about it. Good design is achieved by looking for simplicity, elegance, clarity, modularity, good explanations, and so on. When you have those, then you do get a theory which can be more help to future theories. If you just try to think, “What will the future want?” then you won’t know the answer so you won’t get anywhere.
EDIT: I thought you meant having them vanish is simpler b/c it means that less stuff exists less of the time. That is a rough description of what the Copenhagen Interpretation people think. One issue this raises is that people can and do disagree about what is simpler. I don’t think it’s good to set up “simpler” as a definitive criterion. It’s better to have a discussion. You can use “it’s simpler” as an argument. And that might end the discussion. But it might not if someone else has another criterion they think is relevant and an explanation of why it matters (you shouldn’t rule out that ever happening). And also someone might criticize your interpretation of what makes things simpler in general, or which is simpler in this case.
The MWI vs Bohm/etc stuff is similar: it leads to different research directions for what one thinks would be an important advance in physics, a promising place to look for a successor theory, and so on. As an example, Deutsch got interested in fungibility because of his way of understanding physics. That may or may not be the right direction to go—depending on if his way of thinking about physics is right—but the point is it concretely matters even though it’s not an issue of prediction.
Actually, it is an issue of prediction. We are trying to predict which future research will lead to promising results.
Computer programs are a kind of knowledge, like any other, which has an organizational structure, like any other knowledge.
I would say computer programs are more analogous to architecture than to scientific theories.
Actually, it is an issue of prediction. We are trying to predict which future research will lead to promising results.
If you have a theory, X, which predicts Y, then there are important aspects of X other than Y. There is non-predictive content of X. When you say that those other factors have to do with prediction in some way, that wouldn’t mean that only the predictive content of X matters since the way they have to do with prediction isn’t a prediction X made.
I would say computer programs are more analogous to architecture than to scientific theories.
I’m not speaking in loose analogies and opinions. All knowledge is the same thing (“knowledge”) because it has shared attributes. The concept of an “idea” covers ideas in various fields, under the same word, because they share attributes.
If you have a theory, X, which predicts Y, then there are important aspects of X other than Y. There is non-predictive content of X. When you say that those other factors have to do with prediction in some way, that wouldn’t mean that only the predictive content of X matters since the way they have to do with prediction isn’t a prediction X made.
I would say, evaluate X solely on the predictive merits of Y. If we are interested in future research directions then make separate predictions about those.
All knowledge is the same thing (“knowledge”) because it has shared attributes.
A computer program doesn’t really count as knowledge. Its information, in the scientific and mathematical sense, and you write it down, but the similarity ends there. It is a tool that is built to do a job, and in that respect is more like a building. It doesn’t really count as knowledge at all, not to a Bayesian at any rate.
What? Broad reach is a virtue. A theory which applies to many questions—which has some kind of general principle to it—is valuable. Like QM which applies to the entire universe—it is a universal theory, not a narrow theory.
A computer program doesn’t really count as knowledge.
It has apparent design. It has adaptation to a purpose. It’s problem-solving information. (The knowledge is put there by the programmer, but it’s still there.)
I would say, evaluate X solely on the predictive merits of Y. If we are interested in future research directions then make separate predictions about those.
One of the ways this came up is we were considering theories with identical Y, and whether they have any differences that matter. I said they do. Make sense now?
It has apparent design. It has adaptation to a purpose. It’s problem-solving information. (The knowledge is put there by the programmer, but it’s still there.)
In this sense, a building is also knowledge. Programming is making, not discovering.
One of the ways this came up is we were considering theories with identical Y, and whether they have any differences that matter. I said they do. Make sense now?
Suppose two theories A and B make identical predictions for the results of all lab experiments carried out thus far but disagree about directions for future research. I would say they make different predictions about which research directions will lead to success, and are therefore not entirely identical.
Just got an idea for a good example from another thread.
Consider chess. If a human and a chess program come up with the same move, then the differences between them, and their ways of thinking about the move, don’t really matter, do you think?
And suppose we want to learn from them. So we give them both white. We play the same moves against each of them. We end up with identical games, suppose. So, in the particular positions from that game they make identical predictions about what move has the best chance to win.
Now, we also in each case gather some information about why they made each move to learn from.
The computer program provides move list trees it looked at, at every move, with evaluations of the positions they reach.
The human provides explanations. He says things like, “I was worried my queen side wasn’t safe, so i decided i better win on the king side quickly” or “i saw that this was eventually heading towards a closed game with my pawns fixed on dark squares, so that’s why i traded my bishop for a knight there”.
When you want to learn chess, these different kinds of information are both useful, but in different ways. They are different. The differences matter. For a specific person, with specific strengths and weaknesses, one or the other may be far far more useful.
The point is that identical predictive content (in this case, in the sense of predicting what move has the best chance to win the game in each position) does not mean that what’s going on behind the scenes is even similar.
It would be that one thing is intelligent, and one isn’t. That’s how big the differences can be.
So, are you finally ready to concede that your claim is false? The one you were so sure of that identical predictive content of theories means nothing else matters, and that their internal structure can’t be important?
No, because they do different things. If they take different actions this imply’s they must have different predictions (admittedly its a bit anthropomorphic to talk about a chess program having predictions at all).
Incidentally, they are using different predictions to make their moves. For example the human may predict P(my left side is too weak) = 0.9 and use this prediction to derive P(I should move my queen to the left side) = 0.8, while the chess program doesn’t really predict at all but if it did you would see something more like individual predictions for the chance of winning given each possible move, and a derived prediction like P(I should move my queen to the left side) = 0.8.
With such different processes, its really an astonishing coincidence that they make the same moves at all.
(I apologise in advance for my lack of knowledge of how chess players actually think, I haven’t played it since I discovered go, I hope my point is still apparent.)
Your point is apparent—you try to reinterpret all human thinking in terms of probability—but it just isn’t true. There’s lots of books on how to think about chess. They do not advise what you suggest. Many people follow the advice they do give, which is different and unlike what computers do.
People learn explanations like “control the center because it gives your pieces more mobility” and “usually develop knights before bishops because it’s easier to figure out the correct square for them”.
Chess programs do things like count up how many squares each piece on the board can move to. When humans play they don’t count that. They will instead do stuff like think about what squares they consider important and worry about those.
I only write “idea” instead. If you taboo that too, i start writing “conjecture” or “guess” which is misleading in some contexts. Taboo that too and i might have to say “thought” or “believe” or “misconception” which are even more misleading in many contexts.
In this sense, a building is also knowledge.
Yes buildings rely on, and physically embody, engineering knowledge.
Suppose two theories A and B make identical predictions for the results of all lab experiments carried out thus far but disagree about directions for future research. I would say they make different predictions about which research directions will lead to success, and are therefore not entirely identical.
But they don’t make those predictions. they don’t say this stuff, they embody it in their structure. it’s possible for a theory to be more suited to something, but no one knows that, and it wasn’t made that way on purpose.
I only write “idea” instead. If you taboo that too, i start writing “conjecture” or “guess” which is misleading in some contexts. Taboo that too and i might have to say “thought” or “believe” or “misconception” which are even more misleading in many contexts.
You didn’t read the article, and so you are missing the point. In spectacular fashion I might add.
Yes buildings rely on, and physically embody, engineering knowledge.
So, buildings should be made out of bricks, therefore scientific theories should be made out of bricks?
But they don’t make those predictions. they don’t say this stuff, they embody it in their structure. it’s possible for a theory to be more suited to something, but no one knows that, and it wasn’t made that way on purpose.
I contend that a theory can make more predictions than are explicitly written down. Most theories make infinitely many predictions. A logically omniscient Ideal Bayesian would immediately be able to see all those predictions just from looking at the theory, a Human Bayesian may not, but they still exist.
So, buildings should be made out of bricks, therefore scientific theories should be made out of bricks?
2) I meant something else which you didn’t understand
?
Can you specify the infinitely many predictions of the theory “Mary had a little lamb” without missing any I deem important structural issues? Saying the theory “Mary had a little lamb” is not just a prediction but infinitely many predictions is non-standard terminology right? Did you invent this terminology during this argument, or did you always use? Are there articles on it?
Bayesians don’t treat the concept of a theory as being fundamental to epistemology (which is why I wanted to taboo it), so I tried to figure out the closest Bayesian analogue to what you were saying and used that.
As for 1) and 2), I was merely pointing out that “program’s are a type of knowledge, programs should be modular, therefore knowledge should be modular” and “building’s are a type of knowledge, buildings should be made of bricks, therefore knowledge should be made of bricks” are of the same form and equally valid. Since the latter is clearly wrong, I was making the point that the former is also wrong.
To be honest I have never seen a better demonstration of the importance of narrowness than your last few comments, they are exactly the kind of rubbish you end up talking when you make a concept too broad.
What should I do, do you think? I take it you know what my goals are in order to judge this issue. Neat. What are they? Also what’s my reputation like?
It is my claim that this is not a process of change, it is a total replacement. It will happen that if the old theory had any merit at all then some of its predictions will be identical to those made by the new one.
If my claim is correct then all theories are perfectly modular. A replacement thoery may have an entirely different explanation, but it can freely take any subset of the old theory’s predictions.
I was using efficiency as a quick synonym for all such concerns, to save time and space.
Fine, if we have a new theory that generates very slightly worse predictions, but is less modular, would you advocate replacement.
Do you think all computer programs are perfectly modular? What is it that programmers are learning when they read books on modular design and change their coding style?
Well OK. I didn’t know that. I don’t think you should though b/c efficiency is already the name of a small number of well known concerns, and the ones I’m talking about are separate.
I think this question is misleading. The answer is something like: keep both, and use them for different purposes. If you want to make predictions, use the theory currently best at that. If you want to do research, the more modular one might be a more promising starting point and might surpass the other in the future.
In physics, QM retains many ideas from classical physics. Put it this way: a person trained in classical physics doesn’t have to start over to learn QM. There are lots of ways they are related and his pre-existing knowledge remains useful. This is why even today classical physics is still taught (usually first) at universities. It hasn’t been totally replaced. It’s not just that some of its predictions are retained (they are only retained as quick approximations in limited sets of circumstances, btw. by and large, technically speaking, they are false. and taught anyway), it’s that ways of thinking about physics, and approaching physics problems, are retained. people need knowledge other than predictions such as how to think like physicist. while classical physics predictions were largely not retained, some other aspects largely were retained.
BTW speaking of physics, are you aware of the debate about the many worlds interpretation, the bohmian interpretation, the shut up and calculate interpretation, the copenhagan interpretation, and so on? None of these debates about about prediction. They are all about the explanatory interpretation (or lack there of, for the shut up and calculate school), and the debates are between people who agree on the math and predictions.
They are learning to write computer programs, which are not necessarily perfectly modular. Computer programs and scientific theories are different things and work in different ways.
Are you imagining a scenario something like Ptolemy’s astronomy versus Copernican astronomy during the days when the latter still assumed the planets moved in perfect circles?
In that case I can sort of see your point, the latter was a more promising direction for future research while the former generated better predictions. The former deserved a massive complexity penalty of course, but it may still have come out on top in the Bayesian calculation.
Sadly, there will occasionally be times when you do everything right but still get the wrong answer. Still, there is a Bayesian way to deal with this sort of thing without giving up the focus on predictions. Yudkowsky’s Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation goes into it.
That may be the case, it doesn’t mean that when designing a theory I should waste any concern on “should I try to include general principles which may be useful to future theories”. Thinking like that is likely to generate a lot of rubbish. Thinking “what is happening here, and what simple mathematical explanation can I find for it?” is the only way to go.
Yes, I am. There are some empirical prediction differences, for instance, we might or might not be able to create quantum superpositions at increasingly large scales. In general, I say just pick the mathematically simplest and leave it at that.
You don’t need to resort to QM for an example of that dilemma, “do objects vanish when we stop looking at them?” is another such debate, but ultimately it doesn’t make much difference either way so I say just assume they don’t since its mathematically simpler.
Edit:
Thinking about this some more, I can see the virtue of deliberately spending some time thinking about explanations, and keeping a record of such explanations even if they are attached to theories that make sub-par predictions.
This should all be kept separate from the actual business of science. Prediction should also remain the target, the job of explanations is merely a means towards that end.
Double Edit:
I just realised that I wrote do where I meant don’t for objects vanishing. That completely changes the meaning of the paragraph. Crap.
Assuming that objects do vanish when you stop looking at them is much simpler?
Just noted that in an edit, it was a typo.
Part of the business of science is to create successively better explanations of the world we live in. What its nature is, and so on.
Or maybe you will call that philosophy. If you do, it will be the case that many scientists are “philosophers” too. In the past, I would have said most of them. But instrumentalism started getting rather popular last century.
I wonder where you draw the line with your instrumentalism. For example, do you think the positivists were mistaken? If so, what are your arguments against them?
I do think the positivists went too far. They failed to realise that we can make predictions about things which we can never test. We can never evaluate these predictions, and we can never update our models on the basis of them, but we can still make them in the same way as we make any other predictions.
For example, consider the claim “a pink rhinoceros rides a unicycle around the Andromeda galaxy, he travels much faster than light and so completes a whole circuit of the galaxy every 42 hours. He is, of course, far too small for our telescopes to see.”
The positivist says “meaningless!”
I say “meaningful, very high probability of being false”
Another thing they shouldn’t have dismissed is counterfactuals. As Pearl showed, questions about counterfactuals can be reduced to Bayesian questions of fact.
I sympathise with this. To some extent I may have been exaggerating my own position in my last few posts, it happens to me occasionally. I do think that predictions are the only way of entangling your beliefs with reality, of creating a state of the world where what you believe is causally affected by what is true. Without that you have no way to attain a map that reflects the territory, any epistemology which claims you do is guilty of making stuff up.
I do not agree with this assertion.
Some things I note about it:
1) it isn’t phrased as a prediction
2) it isn’t phrased as an argument based on empirical evidence
Would you like to try rewriting it more carefully?
1) It can be phrased as a prediction. “I predict if someone had no way to evaluate their predictions based on evidence they would have no way of attaining a map that reflects the territory. They would have no way of attaining a belief-set that works better in this world than in the average of all possible worlds”.
2) It is a mathematical statement, or at any rate the logical implication of a mathematical statement, and thus is probably true in all possible worlds so I am not trying to entangle it with the territory.
If Y can be phrased as a prediction, it does not follow that Y is the predictive content of X. Do you understand?
I understand, but disagree. The point I have been trying to make is that it does.
My original claim was that an agent’s outcome was determined solely by that agent’s predictions and the external world in which that agent lived. If you define a theory so that its predictive content is a strict subset of all the predictions which can be derived from it then yes, its predictive content is not all that matters, the other predictions matter as well.
It nonetheless remains the case that what happens to an agent is determined by that agent’s predictions. You need to understand that theories are not fundamentally Bayesian concepts, so it is much better to argue Bayes at either the statement-level or the agent-level than the theory-level.
In addition, I think our debate is starting to annoy everyone else here. There have been times when the entire recent comments bar is filled with comments from one of us, which is considered bad form.
Could we continue this somewhere else?
Yes. I PMed you somewhere yesterday. Did you get it?
This kind of attitude is what we see as the anti-thesis of philosophy, and of understanding the world.
When people try to invent new theories in physics, they need to understand things. For example, will they want to use math that models objects that frequently blink in and out of existence, or objects that don’t do that? Both ways might make the same predictions for all measurements humans can do, but they lead to different research directions. The MWI vs Bohm/etc stuff is similar: it leads to different research directions for what one thinks would be an important advance in physics, a promising place to look for a successor theory, and so on. As an example, Deutsch got interested in fungibility because of his way of understanding physics. That may or may not be the right direction to go—depending on if his way of thinking about physics is right—but the point is it concretely matters even though it’s not an issue of prediction.
Computer programs are a kind of knowledge, like any other, which has an organizational structure, like any other knowledge.
That is not how you achieve good design. That’s the wrong way to go about it. Good design is achieved by looking for simplicity, elegance, clarity, modularity, good explanations, and so on. When you have those, then you do get a theory which can be more help to future theories. If you just try to think, “What will the future want?” then you won’t know the answer so you won’t get anywhere.
EDIT: I thought you meant having them vanish is simpler b/c it means that less stuff exists less of the time. That is a rough description of what the Copenhagen Interpretation people think. One issue this raises is that people can and do disagree about what is simpler. I don’t think it’s good to set up “simpler” as a definitive criterion. It’s better to have a discussion. You can use “it’s simpler” as an argument. And that might end the discussion. But it might not if someone else has another criterion they think is relevant and an explanation of why it matters (you shouldn’t rule out that ever happening). And also someone might criticize your interpretation of what makes things simpler in general, or which is simpler in this case.
I’m pretty sure Benelleiot wrote “do” when he meant “don’t.”
Actually, it is an issue of prediction. We are trying to predict which future research will lead to promising results.
I would say computer programs are more analogous to architecture than to scientific theories.
If you have a theory, X, which predicts Y, then there are important aspects of X other than Y. There is non-predictive content of X. When you say that those other factors have to do with prediction in some way, that wouldn’t mean that only the predictive content of X matters since the way they have to do with prediction isn’t a prediction X made.
I’m not speaking in loose analogies and opinions. All knowledge is the same thing (“knowledge”) because it has shared attributes. The concept of an “idea” covers ideas in various fields, under the same word, because they share attributes.
I would say, evaluate X solely on the predictive merits of Y. If we are interested in future research directions then make separate predictions about those.
A computer program doesn’t really count as knowledge. Its information, in the scientific and mathematical sense, and you write it down, but the similarity ends there. It is a tool that is built to do a job, and in that respect is more like a building. It doesn’t really count as knowledge at all, not to a Bayesian at any rate.
Remember, narrowness is a virtue.
What? Broad reach is a virtue. A theory which applies to many questions—which has some kind of general principle to it—is valuable. Like QM which applies to the entire universe—it is a universal theory, not a narrow theory.
It has apparent design. It has adaptation to a purpose. It’s problem-solving information. (The knowledge is put there by the programmer, but it’s still there.)
One of the ways this came up is we were considering theories with identical Y, and whether they have any differences that matter. I said they do. Make sense now?
What happens if we taboo the word ‘theory’.
In this sense, a building is also knowledge. Programming is making, not discovering.
Suppose two theories A and B make identical predictions for the results of all lab experiments carried out thus far but disagree about directions for future research. I would say they make different predictions about which research directions will lead to success, and are therefore not entirely identical.
Just got an idea for a good example from another thread.
Consider chess. If a human and a chess program come up with the same move, then the differences between them, and their ways of thinking about the move, don’t really matter, do you think?
And suppose we want to learn from them. So we give them both white. We play the same moves against each of them. We end up with identical games, suppose. So, in the particular positions from that game they make identical predictions about what move has the best chance to win.
Now, we also in each case gather some information about why they made each move to learn from.
The computer program provides move list trees it looked at, at every move, with evaluations of the positions they reach.
The human provides explanations. He says things like, “I was worried my queen side wasn’t safe, so i decided i better win on the king side quickly” or “i saw that this was eventually heading towards a closed game with my pawns fixed on dark squares, so that’s why i traded my bishop for a knight there”.
When you want to learn chess, these different kinds of information are both useful, but in different ways. They are different. The differences matter. For a specific person, with specific strengths and weaknesses, one or the other may be far far more useful.
So, the computer program and the human do different things, and thereby produce different results. Your point?
I was claiming that if they did the same thing they would get the same results.
The point is that identical predictive content (in this case, in the sense of predicting what move has the best chance to win the game in each position) does not mean that what’s going on behind the scenes is even similar.
It would be that one thing is intelligent, and one isn’t. That’s how big the differences can be.
So, are you finally ready to concede that your claim is false? The one you were so sure of that identical predictive content of theories means nothing else matters, and that their internal structure can’t be important?
No, because they do different things. If they take different actions this imply’s they must have different predictions (admittedly its a bit anthropomorphic to talk about a chess program having predictions at all).
Incidentally, they are using different predictions to make their moves. For example the human may predict P(my left side is too weak) = 0.9 and use this prediction to derive P(I should move my queen to the left side) = 0.8, while the chess program doesn’t really predict at all but if it did you would see something more like individual predictions for the chance of winning given each possible move, and a derived prediction like P(I should move my queen to the left side) = 0.8.
With such different processes, its really an astonishing coincidence that they make the same moves at all.
(I apologise in advance for my lack of knowledge of how chess players actually think, I haven’t played it since I discovered go, I hope my point is still apparent.)
That’s not how chess players think.
Your point is apparent—you try to reinterpret all human thinking in terms of probability—but it just isn’t true. There’s lots of books on how to think about chess. They do not advise what you suggest. Many people follow the advice they do give, which is different and unlike what computers do.
People learn explanations like “control the center because it gives your pieces more mobility” and “usually develop knights before bishops because it’s easier to figure out the correct square for them”.
Chess programs do things like count up how many squares each piece on the board can move to. When humans play they don’t count that. They will instead do stuff like think about what squares they consider important and worry about those.
Notice how this sentence is actually a prediction in disguise
As is this
I only write “idea” instead. If you taboo that too, i start writing “conjecture” or “guess” which is misleading in some contexts. Taboo that too and i might have to say “thought” or “believe” or “misconception” which are even more misleading in many contexts.
Yes buildings rely on, and physically embody, engineering knowledge.
But they don’t make those predictions. they don’t say this stuff, they embody it in their structure. it’s possible for a theory to be more suited to something, but no one knows that, and it wasn’t made that way on purpose.
The point of tabooing words is to expand your definitions and remove misunderstandings, not to pick almost synonyms.
You didn’t read the article, and so you are missing the point. In spectacular fashion I might add.
So, buildings should be made out of bricks, therefore scientific theories should be made out of bricks?
I contend that a theory can make more predictions than are explicitly written down. Most theories make infinitely many predictions. A logically omniscient Ideal Bayesian would immediately be able to see all those predictions just from looking at the theory, a Human Bayesian may not, but they still exist.
What do you think is more likely:
1) I meant
2) I meant something else which you didn’t understand
?
Can you specify the infinitely many predictions of the theory “Mary had a little lamb” without missing any I deem important structural issues? Saying the theory “Mary had a little lamb” is not just a prediction but infinitely many predictions is non-standard terminology right? Did you invent this terminology during this argument, or did you always use? Are there articles on it?
Bayesians don’t treat the concept of a theory as being fundamental to epistemology (which is why I wanted to taboo it), so I tried to figure out the closest Bayesian analogue to what you were saying and used that.
As for 1) and 2), I was merely pointing out that “program’s are a type of knowledge, programs should be modular, therefore knowledge should be modular” and “building’s are a type of knowledge, buildings should be made of bricks, therefore knowledge should be made of bricks” are of the same form and equally valid. Since the latter is clearly wrong, I was making the point that the former is also wrong.
To be honest I have never seen a better demonstration of the importance of narrowness than your last few comments, they are exactly the kind of rubbish you end up talking when you make a concept too broad.
I didn’t make that argument. Try to be more careful not to put words into my mouth.
When you have a reputation like curi’s this is exactly the sort of rhetorical question you should avoid asking.
What should I do, do you think? I take it you know what my goals are in order to judge this issue. Neat. What are they? Also what’s my reputation like?