unparadoxed

Karma: 48

unparadoxed Dec 23, 2021, 12:02 AM
5 points
on: Six Specializations Makes You World-Class
I can follow the idea that “combining six skills at random makes you so specialized that literally nobody in the world is competing with you”, and that this would translate to “something extraordinary” (for some definition of extraordinary). However, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that “You can make a lot of money” just by doing this.
It seems to me that by hyper-specializing, you are moving your skill-set to an area where the effective supply of the combination of such skills is low. However, from an economic perspective, if we want to “make a lot of money”, we need to also consider the demand for such a hyper-specialized skill-set.
That being said, I think that the insights gained by being top-tier at a skill can provide a competitive advantage in a field that requires another different skill.

unparadoxed Dec 21, 2021, 11:19 PM
1 point
in reply to: aysajan’s comment on: A Short Note on My Value Notion
I see. I feel that the value of a cryptocurrency tends to be within/relative to the contexts of other cryptocurrencies (e.g. ETH is BTC but with smart contracts!), and definitely within the space of cryptocurrency in general we can see particular cryptocurrencies offering undeniable value such as DeFi tokens or interoperability projects.
However, what would really be useful is the valuation of a cryptocurrency relative to fields outside of it. I do know that there are many projects that try to bridge that, but unfortunately the cryptocurrency space tends to be in its own bubble and usually seems to produce goods of debatable or unrealized value (e.g. IoT / Supply-Chain tracking / provenance-tracking a-la NFTs).

unparadoxed Dec 20, 2021, 9:06 PM
1 point
on: A Short Note on My Value Notion
I think that it would be hard to come up with a universal value for anything, given the variance in circumstances we are all subject to. The question “Is it worth it?” is a personal one to each individual, and in fact can be deeply personal and private in some circumstances, depending on the worth/value of the object being evaluated. Thus, the question of modelling value would lead down the path of modelling people and their preferences/desires.
With regards to the value of cryptocurrency, I view the primarily value of it to me as a hedge. I trade centralized regulation for price volatility. Cryptocurrency is also the only type of currency that I know where knowledge of the private key is necessary and sufficient to transact on the network (to a first-order approximation, at least).

unparadoxed Nov 30, 2021, 3:31 AM
1 point
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
Just discovered and read about Conflict vs Mistake Theory, in my own mind my summary would be : Mistake Theory is about the “mind”, Conflict Theory is about the “heart”.

I was also tickled by the meta-level problem.

unparadoxed May 12, 2021, 5:15 AM
1 point
in reply to: CraigMichael’s comment on: CraigMichael’s Shortform
I know very little of and have no stake/opinion in the conflict—I’m just curious about what kind of complexities you encountered on-the-ground that you did not anticipate beforehand, which might have led to you revising your ideas and conceptions. Thank you for your time and words.

unparadoxed May 9, 2021, 7:30 AM
1 point
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
We can have objects of a given type in a set, and we can have an order defined on those objects in that set.
Some people seem to hold values that positively value increasing the types of object in that set, while negatively valuing an order / large distances between those objects.
Others seem to negative value the increase of object types, favoring a smaller number of types while holding that an ordering between objects in a set cannot be avoided.

unparadoxed Feb 14, 2021, 12:37 AM
1 point
in reply to: Adam Smith’s comment on: Adam Smith’s Shortform
Is being able to copy a system necessary for that system to be deterministic?
Maybe unrelated, but I am thinking of infinite series as an example. Imagine a “system” that comprises of the sum of inverse powers of 2. This “system” has infinite terms, and is “deterministic” in that the value of of each term of the series is well-defined and that the infinite sum is equal to 1. It would be impossible to “copy” this system as it involves enumerating an infinite number of terms, but the behavior of this system could be argued to be “deterministic”.

unparadoxed Feb 13, 2021, 7:08 AM
1 point
on: Your Cheerful Price
I can see scenarios where both participants in a trade would benefit from interacting via Cheerful Prices. I’m trying to think if it’s a concept that still works even if one party does not fully buy into it. If I don’t feel comfortable thinking about a Cheerful Price to give you, would I be spending some social / friendship capital that I have with you?

unparadoxed Feb 12, 2021, 6:17 PM
1 point
in reply to: TurnTrout’s comment on: TurnTrout’s shortform feed
Hmm, maybe it would be easier if we focused on one kind/example of craziness. Is there a particular one you have in mind?

unparadoxed Feb 11, 2021, 1:57 AM
3 points
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
Yes, Markets are Efficient, but only when they conform to my biases. If not, they are clearly fraudulent and incorrectly valued.

unparadoxed Feb 10, 2021, 5:29 PM
1 point
in reply to: Yoav Ravid’s comment on: Yoav Ravid’s Shortform
Yeah, that makes sense. The way I came to think of it is that person A commits a crime, then faints and is unconscious after that. Afterwards, a separate nefarious cloner then clones person A in a black box, so one person A goes in, two persons A come out from the cloning black box. Person(s!) A awake, and having a strong conscience of their crime, turn themselves in. Since they have exactly the same memories and conscience, they are indistinguishable from the point of view of being the person who committed the crime, both internally and externally.
This is actually a good question. I feel that both persons should be declared guilty, since cloning oneself (whether intentionally or not) should not give one an automatic-out from moral judgement. I am not as sure about whether the punishment should be equal or shared.

unparadoxed Feb 10, 2021, 8:11 AM
1 point
in reply to: Yoav Ravid’s comment on: Yoav Ravid’s Shortform
It seems to me that you are thinking about some “stronger” form of cloning. The framework that I was thinking in was that the “clone” was a similar-but-distinct entity, something like a Twin materialized out of thin air instantaneously. But it seems that you are thinking of a stronger form where we should treat the two entities as exactly the same.
I have difficulties conceptualizing this since in my mind a clone still occupies a distinct time, space and consciousness as the original, and so is treated distinctly in my eyes. (In terms of being judged for the morality of actions that the original committed).
I will try to think of a situation / framework where this “stronger” form of cloning makes sense to me.

unparadoxed Feb 10, 2021, 7:50 AM
1 point
in reply to: crl826’s comment on: crl826′s Shortform
If you have some feedback loop based on those metrics, then the wiser amongst them might (will?) eventually figure that 1) you were not honest with your metrics and 2) they are being evaluated against some metric that is not defined to them. Now we are in Simulacrum Level 3, which in a way is the same level that would be reached with Goodhart’s Law.

unparadoxed Feb 10, 2021, 7:43 AM
1 point
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
I want to join/create a society of people who do not judge others at all, but how will they decide who to let in?

unparadoxed Feb 10, 2021, 7:26 AM
1 point
in reply to: Yoav Ravid’s comment on: Yoav Ravid’s Shortform
On first thought, it does not seem to me that (im)morality is something that is commonly ascribed to atoms. Just as bits do not actually have a color, so it seems to me that atoms do not have morality. But I’m not a moral philosopher, so that’s just my feeling.
On second thought, consider a thought experiment where we judge the clone. Was the clone a direct / proximate cause of the immorality? It would seem not, as the original was. Did the clone have the intention to cause the immorality? It would seem not, the original did. So I don’t think I would hold the clone liable for the committed immorality.
A more interesting scenario to me would be—We have two clones, we know one of them committed an immorality, but we do not know which one. How do we proceed?

unparadoxed Feb 7, 2021, 8:30 AM
1 point
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
More thoughts on Simulacrum.
Assume that the setting is such that Agents can make statements about Reality.
Level 0 : Reality
Level 1 : Agents are concerned about Reality and making statements about Reality that are True / Honest. Agents in Level 1 seek to understand and exploit Level 0 - Reality. All Agents in level 1 trust each other. As Level-0 Reality asserts its constraints and agents face scarcity, some thus shift to…
Level 2 : Agents are concerned about perceptions (theirs and others) of Reality, and making statements about Reality that induce perceptions about Reality that are beneficial to them. By making potentially False / Dishonest statements, Value in Level 1 is destroyed. All Agents in level 2 are parasitic on agents in level 1. As enough Level-1 agents wise up from being exploited and become Level-2 agents, some thus shift to...
Level 3 : Agents are concerned about statements of Reality. Yes, the statements themselves. Agents are concerned in making statements about Reality which are implicitly valued by having made the statement. This value cannot be derived from explicit statements because all agents distrust each other’s statements about Reality due to Level-2 actions. Thus, the value of statements about Reality do not lie in what they state about Reality, but merely in that they are stated. Note that even though Agents focus on the statements themselves, agents cannot simply state any random statement about reality, as the implicit value from making the statement has to at least partially be derived from the substance of the statement as it would be interpreted in Level 1 (and 2?). As enough Level-3 agents gradually start focusing on the statements themselves, some thus shift to...
Level 4 : Agents are concerned. with everything and nothing. As every statement can be and is interpreted in a potentially infinite number of implicit subtexts, agents make statements without bearing on what they might or might not imply. No practical meaning and value can be derived from the object of statements or the statements themselves.
In the context of agents in a resource-constrained setting, one could see it as follows :
Abundant resources : Level 0 - Agents cooperate to map and exploit resources.
Constrained resources : Level 1 - Due to constraints, Agents trick each other to get a comparative advantage.
Scarce resources : Level 2 - Agents have to band together to fight other bands for resources. Agents make statements to signify their Tribe as an implicit focusing point.
Dying resources : Level 3 - Resources are too scarce to sustain a band, so it is every agent for themselves.
What links here?
- unparadoxed's comment on Simulacra Levels Summary by Zvi (Feb 4, 2023, 3:38 AM; 1 point)

unparadoxed Feb 6, 2021, 9:39 AM
3 points
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
Hashing out my incomplete understanding of Simulacra. :
Level 0 - Reality, let’s call this R.
Level 1 - Agents map/point out reality to each other. For simplicity let’s say there are two agents, A1 and A2. A1->R , A2->R. A1 and A2 can attempt to come to consensus on reality. Value is assigned to Truth, Power is over Reality.
Level 2 - Recursion. Agents can point out agents pointing out reality to each other, thereby potentially distorting reality. Agents realize they can “point pointing”, and influence each other thus. Let R’ be a incorrect reality. The following all belong as this level : A1->(A1->R) , A1->(A1->R’), A1->(A2->R), A1->(A2->R’). Note : A2->R might be distorted as well if that never happened in the first place! Value is assigned to Perception, Power is over Agents.
Level 3 - Emergence and clinging to reality. Realizing that all agents can distort the perceived realities of other agents, agents start pointing to “shadows” of reality. This is level 2 recursed on itself, NOT another level-1 recursion on level 2. (level-2-squared instead of level-2-plus-1, in terms of recursions). Level 2 folding on itself. Agents point at things that seem (at lower levels) to concern agents and reality, but those agents are trying to convey information that is independent of those agents and reality. Thus, the agents and their pointing at reality are necessary but NOT sufficient to convey the desired information. The desired information emerges implicitly out of the distorted realities that hang around level 2. For example, we can let D1 = A1->(A2->R’), a where A1 points that A2 points at an incorrect reality. Then a level 3 example of an agent pointing is A1->(A1->D1), A1 is signaling (outer pointing) by talking (inner pointing) about D1. Value is assigned to Knowledge (understanding the meaning of these “shadows” of reality, which is distinct from Truth!), Power is over Groups of Agents.
Level 4 - Dissipation and Void. Agents realize that all agents are pointing at shadows of reality instead of at reality itself, thus the shadows lose their capability to convey the implicit information of level 3. Agents and their pointing at reality are not necessary to convey information, because no meaningful information can be conveyed. Nothing can be Valued, and no Power can be gained over other entities or realities. This is a new and separate “Reality” Level 0.

unparadoxed Jan 29, 2021, 7:06 AM
5 points
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
To learn, we must be exposed to sources of knowledge. Sources of knowledge can take the form of the environment, ourselves or other people.
We rely on other people as sources of knowledge and learning because the people are amazing at learning and can synthesize what they have learnt into forms that make it easier for others to learn the same thing.
However, it is important to know what we don’t know. Given a source of knowledge, think about the set/space of knowledge that would be impossible / unlikely to learn from that source, even though said source has that knowledge, and the reasons for this.
What might teachers at common institutions of learning know of but be unwilling to teach their students? Why?
What might parents know of but be unwilling to explain to their children? Why?
What kind of common knowledge might be hard/difficult to find on common repositories of knowledge on the internet? Why?
What knowledge is currently unreachable from your current position, not for lack the understanding of others, but merely for the fact that it is inconvenient and inelegant to have it explained to you?

unparadoxed Jan 20, 2021, 6:17 PM
0 points
on: Praying to God
I’m going to ruminate on one aspect that you mentioned in your post—praying.
The rational person would claim that praying has no measurable effect on outcomes when controlled for the placebo effect, and so there is no causality there. So why bother?
The spiritual person would reply that one cannot know for sure that that isn’t the case, and in any case praying (hopefully) takes up a relatively small amount of resources anyway, so why not? (a-la Pascal’s wager)
I feel that it is reasonable for a person to attempt to reach out to any possible means of trying to control a situation that they feel powerless to be in. When faced with massive uncertainty and massive consequences, psychological safety is definitely valuable. Some may find this safety through refining their mental map of the situation and trying to think their way out, others may find this safety through feeling a connection to some perceived / believed higher power.

unparadoxed Jan 20, 2021, 6:29 AM
1 point
on: unparadoxed’s Shortform
Shortform on “Hedonic Collapse”

Assumptions :
1. One is subject to hedonic adaptation.
2. In the absence of external hedonic input, “entropy” renders one’s hedonic stablepoint to be negative.
Desires :
1. It is desired that one’s response to events are temporally invariant. (All else being equal, my reaction to an event should not depend on whether I experience it today or tomorrow)
2. It is desired to be able to forecast the (probability and impact of the) occurrence of future events as well as possible.
Given the above desires and assumptions, an all-knowing, time-invariant oracle that perfectly fulfills desires 1 and 2 will be perpetually unhappy (?).