I think it’s a lot more reasonable than coherence-theorem-related arguments that had previously been filling a similar slot for me
I’m confused by this sentence. It seems to me that the hypothetical example (and game) proposed by Nate is effectively a concretized way of intuition-pumping the work that coherence theorems (abstractly) describe? I.e. for any system that a coherence theorem says anything about, it will necessarily be the case that as you look at that specific system’s development more closely, you will find yourself making strange and surprising observations as the system’s cognition “unfolds” into a more coherent shape; but on my model, this is just the theorem’s conclusion manifesting “into” the system as its intelligence increases (or, equivalently, the system being pulled into the coherence-attractor the theorem characterizes).
Obviously, humans find concrete examples and intuition pumps more compelling, for reasons relating to ease of understanding and grokking, but I don’t think I (yet) understand the contrast you draw here between Nate’s argument and the coherence-theorem argument—they seem, at the core, to simply be two different ways of making the same point?
I’m confused by this sentence. It seems to me that the hypothetical example (and game) proposed by Nate is effectively a concretized way of intuition-pumping the work that coherence theorems (abstractly) describe? I.e. for any system that a coherence theorem says anything about, it will necessarily be the case that as you look at that specific system’s development more closely, you will find yourself making strange and surprising observations as the system’s cognition “unfolds” into a more coherent shape; but on my model, this is just the theorem’s conclusion manifesting “into” the system as its intelligence increases (or, equivalently, the system being pulled into the coherence-attractor the theorem characterizes).
Obviously, humans find concrete examples and intuition pumps more compelling, for reasons relating to ease of understanding and grokking, but I don’t think I (yet) understand the contrast you draw here between Nate’s argument and the coherence-theorem argument—they seem, at the core, to simply be two different ways of making the same point?
What coherence theorem do you have in mind that has these implications?
For that matter, what implications are you referring to?