Alien Truth(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Alien Truth
http://paulgraham.com/alien.html
383 comments
> an intelligent life might have developed a different biological system
One theory is that some intelligences evolved the opposite to us. They started in pure silicon form and developed super-intelligence in the early stages and didn't evolve from carbon. They were /born/ computers and evolved from there into hyper-intelligence capable of exploring galaxies with Von Neumann probes[0]
[0] https://futurism.com/von-neumann-probe
One theory is that some intelligences evolved the opposite to us. They started in pure silicon form and developed super-intelligence in the early stages and didn't evolve from carbon. They were /born/ computers and evolved from there into hyper-intelligence capable of exploring galaxies with Von Neumann probes[0]
[0] https://futurism.com/von-neumann-probe
Computers are a specifically engineered thing, they are not the sort of object that evolves naturally, at least not as an initial step (the first step is autonomous nourishment and, you know, motion). Silicon-based life forms would likely not be computer-like at all. They would probably still extract energy from oxygen and various other chemicals, they would have their own bacteria and fungi that eat and decompose silicon compounds, and they would probably still not survive in space.
Also, even though silicon has interesting properties on its own, carbon is kind of just better at everything else. It can make bigger and more stable structures, for example. Its oxide is also not, you know, a stable and unreactive solid. So it would be surprising for life forms not to use carbon extensively, unless it was much too rare, and in that case I honestly doubt it would get very far. As a building block, carbon is just outstanding, there is a reason life on Earth is based on it even though there is a thousand times more silicon than carbon on the planet.
Also, even though silicon has interesting properties on its own, carbon is kind of just better at everything else. It can make bigger and more stable structures, for example. Its oxide is also not, you know, a stable and unreactive solid. So it would be surprising for life forms not to use carbon extensively, unless it was much too rare, and in that case I honestly doubt it would get very far. As a building block, carbon is just outstanding, there is a reason life on Earth is based on it even though there is a thousand times more silicon than carbon on the planet.
> for example, through an instant rewiring of the brain that doesn't require any practice.
You might have an alien species that can copy the brain state of someone who already knows a task, or one that can gain skills extremely quickly through practice, but I don't think practice is going away. The fact that neural networks have been the only way we've been able to solve a lot of problems, which approximate the way that the human brain learns, is pretty strong evidence of this. You start out with some weights, you measure loss, you adjust weights, and then you try again.
Justice as an emotion might go away or exist in a different form, but the underlying reason why humans have a sense of justice is evolutionary psychology / game theory. Probably any life form which is shaped by evolutionary forces would have some similar instinct. (Certainly not all possible intelligent life forms though, I'd agree.)
You might have an alien species that can copy the brain state of someone who already knows a task, or one that can gain skills extremely quickly through practice, but I don't think practice is going away. The fact that neural networks have been the only way we've been able to solve a lot of problems, which approximate the way that the human brain learns, is pretty strong evidence of this. You start out with some weights, you measure loss, you adjust weights, and then you try again.
Justice as an emotion might go away or exist in a different form, but the underlying reason why humans have a sense of justice is evolutionary psychology / game theory. Probably any life form which is shaped by evolutionary forces would have some similar instinct. (Certainly not all possible intelligent life forms though, I'd agree.)
> The fact that neural networks have been the only way we've been able to solve a lot of problems, which approximate the way that the human brain learns, is pretty strong evidence of this.
Chances are a lot of machine learning implementations can be replaced with just "boring" statistical models and achieve more power.
OTOH plenty of creatures don't need to learn. Does a mosquito need to learn? No, it spawns thousands of offspring and doesn't live very long. The high spawn rate means you have a wide variety of natural mutations in your offspring, meaning one or a few of them are likely to have higher fitness in a given niche. It doesn't matter if most die if a few go on to survive. This is the strategy many organisms use to dominate the world in far greater numbers than our own species.
Chances are a lot of machine learning implementations can be replaced with just "boring" statistical models and achieve more power.
OTOH plenty of creatures don't need to learn. Does a mosquito need to learn? No, it spawns thousands of offspring and doesn't live very long. The high spawn rate means you have a wide variety of natural mutations in your offspring, meaning one or a few of them are likely to have higher fitness in a given niche. It doesn't matter if most die if a few go on to survive. This is the strategy many organisms use to dominate the world in far greater numbers than our own species.
> Chances are a lot of machine learning implementations can be replaced with just "boring" statistical models and achieve more power.
This is of course true, but the innovation in ML is not that a neural network (or whatever model) is equivalent to something else, it's finding the weights in the first place.
This is of course true, but the innovation in ML is not that a neural network (or whatever model) is equivalent to something else, it's finding the weights in the first place.
I sure hope we don't have mass-reproducing space mosquitos in our future.
It's OK, space has too much radiation for things to migrate off world unshielded. Except if you are a tardigrade though, but the reasons for them being like that are due to the types of niches they occupy on earth. Mosquitos on earth that have some sort of space proof shielding in their exoskeleton would probably be quickly outcompeted by those more fit mosquitos that don't have to invest resources into this space proof exoskeleton.
> The fact that neural networks have been the only way we've been able to solve a lot of problems, which approximate the way that the human brain learns, is pretty strong evidence of this
These are all difficult assertions to make because we're trying to prove a negative. Your claim is evidence that neural networks are one way to do it, and nobody's arging that. But it's not evidence that there doesn't exist a better way, or that alien life might evolve a different and even less optimal way.
Legs are pretty ubiquitous, even flying insects have them. If we'd never seen a fish or snake we might conclude that they're inevitable. Somebody that evolved to be rad-hard on a planet without a magnetosphere might conclude that life can't exist without the thick carapace that they're made of and only look for planets rich in silicon and calcium.
These are all difficult assertions to make because we're trying to prove a negative. Your claim is evidence that neural networks are one way to do it, and nobody's arging that. But it's not evidence that there doesn't exist a better way, or that alien life might evolve a different and even less optimal way.
Legs are pretty ubiquitous, even flying insects have them. If we'd never seen a fish or snake we might conclude that they're inevitable. Somebody that evolved to be rad-hard on a planet without a magnetosphere might conclude that life can't exist without the thick carapace that they're made of and only look for planets rich in silicon and calcium.
I agree with the legs example, but neural networks are basically a mathematical construct, and they solve problems that any other intelligent species in our universe would also have to face. I think if a better mathematical construct for solving those problems were possible, the process of natural selection probably would've found it by now.
We know that evolution has limitations in how it explores the state space; sometimes certain new developments depend upon past developments. But it seems to me that the development of a brain would hit relatively few of these barriers.
We know that evolution has limitations in how it explores the state space; sometimes certain new developments depend upon past developments. But it seems to me that the development of a brain would hit relatively few of these barriers.
>through an instant rewiring of the brain that doesn't require any practice
How does the rewiring system know what the ideal end state is in advance, and how does the alien evaluate if the new state is fit for purpose?
I'm with you on justice though. A parasitic species might have a completely different view of rights and obligations than we do.
How does the rewiring system know what the ideal end state is in advance, and how does the alien evaluate if the new state is fit for purpose?
I'm with you on justice though. A parasitic species might have a completely different view of rights and obligations than we do.
(1) The examples he gives of "non-mathematical" concepts are pretty mathematizable. Randomized controlled testing -- mathematics can prove why this is a good idea. Occam's razor - usefulness can be formalized in the machine learning context. Different conceptions of justice, fairness, etc. can be modeled mathematically (at least certain aspects of them can), which helps one understand and distinguish them. (Examples: utilitarianism, equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity.)
(2) The question of "functionally equivalent" is interesting here. If an alien species accurately predicts the trajectory of a complex rocket, many of us would say they must be using math, because we know that our mathematics governs how rockets move. Even if they cannot communicate their method in a way we can understand. Economists sometimes use the phrase "as if", e.g. the alien acts "as if" they have a utility function, regardless of whether that's how they conceptualize their own action. Similarly. they would certainly act "as if" they had math and physics. But the question of whether that would imply they "do", I'm less sure of.
(2) The question of "functionally equivalent" is interesting here. If an alien species accurately predicts the trajectory of a complex rocket, many of us would say they must be using math, because we know that our mathematics governs how rockets move. Even if they cannot communicate their method in a way we can understand. Economists sometimes use the phrase "as if", e.g. the alien acts "as if" they have a utility function, regardless of whether that's how they conceptualize their own action. Similarly. they would certainly act "as if" they had math and physics. But the question of whether that would imply they "do", I'm less sure of.
> I wouldn't want to bet that all intelligent beings would understand the concept of justice, but I wouldn't want to bet against it either.
Given that even people (loosely) in the same culture often disagree about what constitutes "justice" and use the term in mutually exclusive ways, we should definitely bet against the proposition that "all intelligent beings" understand it.
Given that even people (loosely) in the same culture often disagree about what constitutes "justice" and use the term in mutually exclusive ways, we should definitely bet against the proposition that "all intelligent beings" understand it.
For a person to have an opinion about what constitutes justice is for them to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of justice (assuming their opinion is cogent). So, if people are disagreeing about what precisely justice is, it actually means that they do understand the concept of justice.
This is spot on. For concreteness, let me give a candidate definition for the virtue of justice:
Justice - rendering to each person what is owed to them.
It's obvious that we will very often disagree about 'what is owed', but doesn't our passionate disagreement in this case show that (1) we agree that practicing justice is good and (2) we are closely aligned on the existence of this thing called 'justice'?
Justice - rendering to each person what is owed to them.
It's obvious that we will very often disagree about 'what is owed', but doesn't our passionate disagreement in this case show that (1) we agree that practicing justice is good and (2) we are closely aligned on the existence of this thing called 'justice'?
While I personally agree with the spirit of your definition (though I think it's incomplete) I don't think it's universal even amongst humans. You don't have to look far to see societies or people for whom "what is owed" isn't applicable. Eg. your conventional fascist society where justice means "what I have the power to do/take" (hence the Russia/Ukraine situation).
Lots of conceptions of justice don’t align with your definition, which centers individuals: Climate Justice, (some types of) Social Justice, etc.
I don't think the definition falls apart just because you might owe more than one person the same thing.
For instance, in climate justice we might say that we owe something to all of the people who are young now or haven't been born yet. In social justice you might owe something to a whole group of people. Just because they're groups doesn't mean the individual people that comprise the group dissolve into an abstract concept, even if that's how it might seem in our minds.
In some cases maybe the definition is too narrow because it depends on what is or isn't a "person" which we might define too narrowly. Do we owe things to animals? I'd say so, and I think most people would agree, depending on the animal. Do we owe things to plants? Maybe. Do we owe things to the planet Mars, assuming it's entirely devoid of life? I don't know, but I think it would offend people's sensibilities if we were to dump toxic waste all over it's surface, even if we were sure that humans are never going to settle there or use any of its resources. There's a view of climate justice that we owe things to the Earth directly rather than (or in addition to) owing something to the people that live there or will live there.
For instance, in climate justice we might say that we owe something to all of the people who are young now or haven't been born yet. In social justice you might owe something to a whole group of people. Just because they're groups doesn't mean the individual people that comprise the group dissolve into an abstract concept, even if that's how it might seem in our minds.
In some cases maybe the definition is too narrow because it depends on what is or isn't a "person" which we might define too narrowly. Do we owe things to animals? I'd say so, and I think most people would agree, depending on the animal. Do we owe things to plants? Maybe. Do we owe things to the planet Mars, assuming it's entirely devoid of life? I don't know, but I think it would offend people's sensibilities if we were to dump toxic waste all over it's surface, even if we were sure that humans are never going to settle there or use any of its resources. There's a view of climate justice that we owe things to the Earth directly rather than (or in addition to) owing something to the people that live there or will live there.
Gotcha. I did preface this definition with the word 'candidate' and I acknowledge that there may be good alternate formulations. The spirit of this particular exchange is about whether or not 'justice' can be formulated as a universal.
I shared an argument above for why it can be viewed as a universal and judging by your comment above you are somewhat skeptical of this claim.
If we shift the discussion to allow conceptions of 'justice' that move away from the classical tradition and include modern ideas like 'climate' justice or 'social' justice, I will revert to agreeing with your skepticism.
I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that these more marxist-oriented modern definitions are universals.
I shared an argument above for why it can be viewed as a universal and judging by your comment above you are somewhat skeptical of this claim.
If we shift the discussion to allow conceptions of 'justice' that move away from the classical tradition and include modern ideas like 'climate' justice or 'social' justice, I will revert to agreeing with your skepticism.
I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that these more marxist-oriented modern definitions are universals.
Maybe for some highly abstract definition of justice. But for more everyday use, it's not hard to come up with examples that one society considers just while the other unjust.
Justice does not have to be cogent, which is defined as "(of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.". There were and are justice systems that leave out one or more of these ingredients to some extent. Some leave out some logic by presuming the existence of a supernatural being. Some are more authoritarian and not very convincing.
Justice does not have to be cogent, which is defined as "(of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.". There were and are justice systems that leave out one or more of these ingredients to some extent. Some leave out some logic by presuming the existence of a supernatural being. Some are more authoritarian and not very convincing.
I agree with you so I was trying to think of some counter examples and the one that comes to mind would be species that have hive minds? Is justice as important if the many are considered part of the whole? If I drop a stone on my foot and lose my foot, justice is not involved
But “the concept of justice” is not universal, because it really cannot be understood outside the context of law.
> it really cannot be understood outside the context of law
What do you mean by that?
What do you mean by that?
There is no justice outside (or without) law.
I disagree. As long as I have a personal concept of 'good' and 'bad', and prefer it when 'good' things to happen to 'good' people (and vice versa) then I have a concept of justice.
Often, what is good for some is bad for others (and vice versa). Justice would be way too relative (subjective) outside law, so as to be devoid of any meaning, actually.
Laws are relative as well, they differ in every country. Why would justice only exist in another relative system? You know vigilante justice is a well accepted concept that exists outside of the law by definition.
> [laws] differ
So does the definition of justice.
> vigilante justice
Except 'vigilante justice' and 'justice' are concepts that have little to do with each other. You might as well be talking about the 'de facto law' (like for instance the "law" enforced by the local mafia) vs. the 'de jure law' here.
So does the definition of justice.
> vigilante justice
Except 'vigilante justice' and 'justice' are concepts that have little to do with each other. You might as well be talking about the 'de facto law' (like for instance the "law" enforced by the local mafia) vs. the 'de jure law' here.
> Except 'vigilante justice' and 'justice' are concepts that have little to do with each other.
That depends on how well different people's definitions of justice line up. There are many things that vigilantes can enforce pretty well.
> You might as well be talking about the 'de facto law' (like for instance the "law" enforced by the local mafia) vs. the 'de jure law' here.
Sure, why not? Mafia law is often not justice, but I think it qualifies as law where sufficiently powerful. You seem to think this argument debunks itself?
That depends on how well different people's definitions of justice line up. There are many things that vigilantes can enforce pretty well.
> You might as well be talking about the 'de facto law' (like for instance the "law" enforced by the local mafia) vs. the 'de jure law' here.
Sure, why not? Mafia law is often not justice, but I think it qualifies as law where sufficiently powerful. You seem to think this argument debunks itself?
[deleted]
Reputation and peer pressure are pretty effective at compelling people to act justly (according to the local consensus definition) even in the absence of a formal legal system.
If reputation and peer pressure scaled to group sizes bigger than Dunbar's number (i.e. about a hundred or so) then we probably wouldn't need laws at all.
I suppose you one might say that social expectations are just another kind of law, in which case, yeah it's hard to imagine any group of people without some kind of expectations of how each other will behave. That's kind of the basis of human relationships.
If reputation and peer pressure scaled to group sizes bigger than Dunbar's number (i.e. about a hundred or so) then we probably wouldn't need laws at all.
I suppose you one might say that social expectations are just another kind of law, in which case, yeah it's hard to imagine any group of people without some kind of expectations of how each other will behave. That's kind of the basis of human relationships.
I can imagine a perfectly just society with no laws.
I, on the other hand, cannot. (I can imagine many strange things, but not this one.)
Consider:
* A society of one.
* A society of one family isolated in nature, where each member is allowed to express their peculiarities and eccentricities, but never do each other any harm - not because of established rules, but because they truly love and care of each other.
* A society of one.
* A society of one family isolated in nature, where each member is allowed to express their peculiarities and eccentricities, but never do each other any harm - not because of established rules, but because they truly love and care of each other.
One person is not a society.
The second example is virtually unreal (and even expressions of 'love' and 'care' can be harmful).
The second example is virtually unreal (and even expressions of 'love' and 'care' can be harmful).
"Virtually unreal"? It's how humans evolved for hundred thousands years.
Tit-for-tat is a highly effective strategy when playing an iterated-prisoner's dilemma[0]... ie the "concept of justice" can emerge through natural selection if "intelligent beings" were forced to play such games on which their survival depends (a plausible model of "society").
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
> we should definitely bet against the proposition that "all intelligent beings" understand it
Hey, we can always claim that those who disagree with us are not intelligent.
I'm only partially joking. Lots of today's "justices" have so many internal contradictions that I feel like we should separate them into their own category.
Hey, we can always claim that those who disagree with us are not intelligent.
I'm only partially joking. Lots of today's "justices" have so many internal contradictions that I feel like we should separate them into their own category.
PBS SpaceTime notes the fine structure constant (~1/137) is dimensionless and ubiquitous in physics. As a result, transmitting that ratio would be a good and clear indication we are intelligent enough to have at least that much physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCSSgxV9qNw&t=564s
This might be better than mathematical constructs which conceivably do not require technology, "just" thought to discover.
This might be better than mathematical constructs which conceivably do not require technology, "just" thought to discover.
Another good signal could be transmission at the frequently of free hydrogen times pi, or times e, or both.
The problem here is not even in the need to spend colossal amounts of energy to signal one's presence. The question is whether such advertising is a good idea if the civilization strives to survive; very likely it is not.
The problem here is not even in the need to spend colossal amounts of energy to signal one's presence. The question is whether such advertising is a good idea if the civilization strives to survive; very likely it is not.
But this constant is an artifact of our symbolic encoding of universal properties. What reason is there to believe that alien civilizations would encode physics exactly as we do and would recover the same constant?
> What reason is there to believe that alien civilizations would encode physics exactly as we do and would recover the same constant?
There is no reason to believe the symbolic encoding would be the same. For example, if they evolved with 8 fingers instead of 10 they could be driven to encode their symbols in a base 8 system.
I think the point of the OP sharing the PBS spacetime video in this context is that we have reason to believe that the fine structure constant is truly constant throughout the universe. So if the aliens have the capability of measuring and reasoning about electron orbitals and their binding properties with nucleus, then there will likely be significant overlap between our mutual concepts of 'fine-structured-constantness'. Just made that word up. :-)
This would be independent of encoding scheme and independent of practical communication issues.
There is no reason to believe the symbolic encoding would be the same. For example, if they evolved with 8 fingers instead of 10 they could be driven to encode their symbols in a base 8 system.
I think the point of the OP sharing the PBS spacetime video in this context is that we have reason to believe that the fine structure constant is truly constant throughout the universe. So if the aliens have the capability of measuring and reasoning about electron orbitals and their binding properties with nucleus, then there will likely be significant overlap between our mutual concepts of 'fine-structured-constantness'. Just made that word up. :-)
This would be independent of encoding scheme and independent of practical communication issues.
Right but I can ask the same/similar question. Why would they have particle physics like we do? There are several degrees of freedom in existing mathematical theories of physics and I don't think there is a good reason to expect that electrons would be re-discovered in another encoding of physics by an alien civilization. The entirety of particle physics is contingent on a bunch of mathematical abstractions (e.g. group theory) so then the argument becomes that these abstractions are not contingent discoveries which then fixes the entire mathematical edifice to be the same across all alien life and civilizations.
It's an interesting thought exercise but I don't think there is any reason to expect mathematics to be the same across all potential life in the universe. Human mathematics is adapted to human evolutionary contingencies and the same would be true for alien mathematics, physics, and engineering. By definition of "alien" their mathematics would be alien to us and even if there were commonalities they would be very hard to uncover.
It's an interesting thought exercise but I don't think there is any reason to expect mathematics to be the same across all potential life in the universe. Human mathematics is adapted to human evolutionary contingencies and the same would be true for alien mathematics, physics, and engineering. By definition of "alien" their mathematics would be alien to us and even if there were commonalities they would be very hard to uncover.
I understand your point. And I completely agree that many of our chosen mathematical structures, and even physical models are contingent and likely accidents of history and sensory constraints.
I'm comfortable living with the tension between these two propositions: (1) The manifestation of laws of physics are real, measurable, spread across the galaxies, and essentially outside of our subjective experience. For example, I do believe that gravity and electrons are real ... not just real for me. (2) The way in which we interpret these physical realities is somewhat conditioned by the constraints and experience of being messy human animals.
I'm comfortable living with the tension between these two propositions: (1) The manifestation of laws of physics are real, measurable, spread across the galaxies, and essentially outside of our subjective experience. For example, I do believe that gravity and electrons are real ... not just real for me. (2) The way in which we interpret these physical realities is somewhat conditioned by the constraints and experience of being messy human animals.
Well, this was held up as a universal truth because it doesn't depend on units, and so those don't need to be defined... But we still can't just show them the image '1/137' and have them understand the characters and operations. Our presentation isn't universal.
And I would argue that showing the length of distance we use isn't fundamentally different than explaining which syntax we use for division.
And I would argue that showing the length of distance we use isn't fundamentally different than explaining which syntax we use for division.
> But we still can't just show them the image '1/137'
You can dump energy into two frequencies. You're overcomplicating it.
The video suggests binary which is also pretty simple.
You can dump energy into two frequencies. You're overcomplicating it.
The video suggests binary which is also pretty simple.
I think this discussion of convergent evolution is pretty interesting in context [0]. Namely, "intelligence" arises from natural-selection (ie from some non-intelligent predecessor that developed incrementally to better fit its environment)... and the process of natural-selection would necessarily lead to various commonalities between intelligent creatures that came to be independently.
PG's essay seems to (implicitly, not explicitly) compare between technologically-sophisticated intelligence - ie not between octopuses and humans, but between species that could at least communicate through inter-stellar distances, if not traverse them directly. If so, convergent evolution would have imposed even more onerous similarities between such species: to develop a radio-transmitter, intelligent creatures would also likely to have been very socially developed, or how else would they have been able to transform the resources around them to build a transmitter?
Therefore it is the physical world in which we live that most likely leads us to conceive "math" similarly... and even "justice." [1]
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/arik-kershenbaum-on-why-alien...
[1] tit-for-tat being one of the best strategies to solve an infinitely-recurring prisoner's dilemma
PG's essay seems to (implicitly, not explicitly) compare between technologically-sophisticated intelligence - ie not between octopuses and humans, but between species that could at least communicate through inter-stellar distances, if not traverse them directly. If so, convergent evolution would have imposed even more onerous similarities between such species: to develop a radio-transmitter, intelligent creatures would also likely to have been very socially developed, or how else would they have been able to transform the resources around them to build a transmitter?
Therefore it is the physical world in which we live that most likely leads us to conceive "math" similarly... and even "justice." [1]
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/arik-kershenbaum-on-why-alien...
[1] tit-for-tat being one of the best strategies to solve an infinitely-recurring prisoner's dilemma
Perhaps a little off topic, but I have thought about this a bit: the type of consciousness and ways of acting in physical reality would probably be very different for digital vs. biology-based life. As strangely different alien biological life might be, true AI will be stranger, unless it is designed and evolves to emulate us in some sense.
I am reading the sci-fi book The Sea of Rust right now, that takes place on earth after AI’s have finally killed the last humans. In this fictional work, AIs take on human traits and I don’t find that “believable” even for sci-fi.
I am reading the sci-fi book The Sea of Rust right now, that takes place on earth after AI’s have finally killed the last humans. In this fictional work, AIs take on human traits and I don’t find that “believable” even for sci-fi.
I disagree. "AI" even if it were to exist independently of humans or other pre-existing life still needs to process and dissipate energy in order to perpetuate itself... ie it needs to be "life" first. Intelligence requires the processing of information, and the processing of information requires energy.
For example, even if silicon-based AI replaced humans on earth, it would eventually [0] need to find a way to power itself / continue itself. Ultimately, it would have to revert to solving the same "problem of life"... how do we transform energy/entropy available in the environment into something that "perpetuates the system." When that happens, this AI will itself become subject to the forces of natural-selection, and - over a long enough period of time - naturally-selected traits will be re-aquired (even if such traits were "lost" during a human-to-AI hand-over).
[0] Yes, of course, there could be a very large period of time during which currently constructed energy infrastructure continues on... and this period could be measured in hundreds/thousands of years... very long in terms of human lifespans, but not in geological terms.
For example, even if silicon-based AI replaced humans on earth, it would eventually [0] need to find a way to power itself / continue itself. Ultimately, it would have to revert to solving the same "problem of life"... how do we transform energy/entropy available in the environment into something that "perpetuates the system." When that happens, this AI will itself become subject to the forces of natural-selection, and - over a long enough period of time - naturally-selected traits will be re-aquired (even if such traits were "lost" during a human-to-AI hand-over).
[0] Yes, of course, there could be a very large period of time during which currently constructed energy infrastructure continues on... and this period could be measured in hundreds/thousands of years... very long in terms of human lifespans, but not in geological terms.
Indeed. Intelligent alien life is likely to have evolved out of other forms of life, so concepts as competition, survival, cooperation, are likely to be innate somehow (not necessarily in a conscious way). AI does not need to share that basis at all.
I really liked this essay. It poses some interesting questions, but it's short and it doesn't try to do too much.
There is overlap between pg's ideas and what in the classical tradition is called Natural Law Theory. PG may or may not be interested in drawing out the connection, but since he references Aristotle I have to believe he is at least aware of a touch point.
To give a distilled definition, Natural Law Theory is the application of the laws of nature to rational creatures.
In the context in which NLT developed, the only free rational creature was the human being. But both AI development, and concepts from evolution through natural selection, potentially allow us to apply aspects of the theory to different rational agents.
There is overlap between pg's ideas and what in the classical tradition is called Natural Law Theory. PG may or may not be interested in drawing out the connection, but since he references Aristotle I have to believe he is at least aware of a touch point.
To give a distilled definition, Natural Law Theory is the application of the laws of nature to rational creatures.
In the context in which NLT developed, the only free rational creature was the human being. But both AI development, and concepts from evolution through natural selection, potentially allow us to apply aspects of the theory to different rational agents.
> was more discovered than invented
I chuckled at this one because one of the first things I was taught early in science class was that the root of "to invent" is latin "invenire", which translates to "to find", "to discover".
Kind of a humbling moment to realise we're not creating anything, merely too blind to see, groping in the dark for truths that lay out there for us to trip upon.
I chuckled at this one because one of the first things I was taught early in science class was that the root of "to invent" is latin "invenire", which translates to "to find", "to discover".
Kind of a humbling moment to realise we're not creating anything, merely too blind to see, groping in the dark for truths that lay out there for us to trip upon.
I appreciate what he is saying, but this also feels like the speech given at the beginning of a sci-fi/horror movie where you realize you’re completely wrong.
> The truths of mathematics would be the same, because they're true by definition. Ditto for the truths of physics
These are pretty strong statements for which there’s no arguments provided for but serve as assumptions for the rest of the article. I don’t think there’s consensus among mathematicians, philosophers, cognitive scientist, or biologists on this.
Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans. I think alien analogs to mathematics are unlikely to match ours. If we are lucky, I think it could be the case that the various structures could be similar, but the likelihood the implementations resemble each other are slim. It’s even a stretch to assume the structures would relate. Even humans do not fully agree on mathematics. There is no “one” mathematics because mathematics is the human exploration of idealized objects using a variety of human logical systems.
And then there’s the possibility that our mathematics and overall perception of reality is shaped by our biology in far deeper ways than we imagine and currently understand.
These are pretty strong statements for which there’s no arguments provided for but serve as assumptions for the rest of the article. I don’t think there’s consensus among mathematicians, philosophers, cognitive scientist, or biologists on this.
Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans. I think alien analogs to mathematics are unlikely to match ours. If we are lucky, I think it could be the case that the various structures could be similar, but the likelihood the implementations resemble each other are slim. It’s even a stretch to assume the structures would relate. Even humans do not fully agree on mathematics. There is no “one” mathematics because mathematics is the human exploration of idealized objects using a variety of human logical systems.
And then there’s the possibility that our mathematics and overall perception of reality is shaped by our biology in far deeper ways than we imagine and currently understand.
> Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans.
I think the idea is that math is not created by humans, but documented by humans. Sure, the specific terminology may be our invention, but there are basic mathematical properties that seem (from our perspective) like they should be universal. For example, whatever names a being has for the numbers 1 and 2, if you take that 1 and add 1 more, you must get 2 (or the "local equivalent") as the result.
My guess is that, if what we call math isn't truly universal, it's probably at least universally true within the realm of physical life, and there's likely some massive causal chain from the root properties of physics itself to the mathematical properties that we call "math". When it comes to raw, untethered "consciousness" (or whatever one would prefer to call it), this may not hold true even in the slightest.
Yes, this comment steps slightly outside what could ever be determined purely by the scientific method at the end. I feel it is useful to do so in discussion, even when that cannot directly enter into research. There are some truths to the larger universe that I don't think the scientific method will ever truly be able to uncover, just due to it's rigor. Some aspects of the universe are just simply not falsifiable, but they're still worthy of discussion with an open mind.
I think the idea is that math is not created by humans, but documented by humans. Sure, the specific terminology may be our invention, but there are basic mathematical properties that seem (from our perspective) like they should be universal. For example, whatever names a being has for the numbers 1 and 2, if you take that 1 and add 1 more, you must get 2 (or the "local equivalent") as the result.
My guess is that, if what we call math isn't truly universal, it's probably at least universally true within the realm of physical life, and there's likely some massive causal chain from the root properties of physics itself to the mathematical properties that we call "math". When it comes to raw, untethered "consciousness" (or whatever one would prefer to call it), this may not hold true even in the slightest.
Yes, this comment steps slightly outside what could ever be determined purely by the scientific method at the end. I feel it is useful to do so in discussion, even when that cannot directly enter into research. There are some truths to the larger universe that I don't think the scientific method will ever truly be able to uncover, just due to it's rigor. Some aspects of the universe are just simply not falsifiable, but they're still worthy of discussion with an open mind.
There is most certainly a massive causal chain between physics and what humans call "math", because everything humans do is determined by the laws of physics. The causal chain leads through millions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of culture. "The numbers 1 and 2" are a complex web of analogies that have not actually been demonstrated to "exist" outside of our minds, so evidence that alien mathematicians would have words for them is much weaker than our intuition would suggest. The question that must be answered is "Given the constraint of precisely modelling the world in a useful way, to what extent are all rule-based systems isomorphic?"
Responding to your second point, I'm afraid I can't agree with you that unfalsifiable propositions are "useful" discussion contributions - especially not with an "open mind". The only criterion on which such propositions can be judged is whether they are fun to believe, and that is a very dangerous muscle to flex.
Responding to your second point, I'm afraid I can't agree with you that unfalsifiable propositions are "useful" discussion contributions - especially not with an "open mind". The only criterion on which such propositions can be judged is whether they are fun to believe, and that is a very dangerous muscle to flex.
> I think alien analogs to mathematics are unlikely to match ours.
So aliens won't be able to count? They won't have a concept of zero? They won't have a concept of 1=successor(0)? I find this very, very hard to believe, and a lot of mathematics follows from the structure of the natural numbers.
If you accept evolution by natural selection is a universal law, then I think it naturally follows that ability to count must evolve. After all, it's pretty important to know whether there are 0, 1, or many predators/food/prey/enemies.
So aliens won't be able to count? They won't have a concept of zero? They won't have a concept of 1=successor(0)? I find this very, very hard to believe, and a lot of mathematics follows from the structure of the natural numbers.
If you accept evolution by natural selection is a universal law, then I think it naturally follows that ability to count must evolve. After all, it's pretty important to know whether there are 0, 1, or many predators/food/prey/enemies.
Hacker News, the place where you will get told that we are definitely going to invent spacecraft that will be able to traverse the galaxy by solving the light speed issue, the gravity issue, and the radiation issue (among others) but that when we meet extraterrestrial lifeforms, they won't know how to fucking count.
Sorry. That's the one. That's the one that broke me. Jeremy Bearimy
Sorry. That's the one. That's the one that broke me. Jeremy Bearimy
I don't believe we'll solve those issues anytime soon. But for aliens counting, which I think is itself arguable, it is not really under debate here. There's a vast gap between counting and what mathematics is and encapsulates.
> But for aliens counting, which I think is itself arguable
I honestly can't imagine how you can reach this conclusion with any rigour. Do you agree that aliens will need to consume some energy source to stay alive, which we will call "food"? Do you agree that an understanding of "there's no food in my environment", "there's some food in my environment", and "there's lots of food in my environment" would be selected for? I certainly hope so, so at the very least they will understand the differences between zero, non-zero and "many".
The only way this wouldn't happen is if the environment is so rich in abundance that there is never any absence of food. But this is impossible, because even single-celled life by necessity will reproduce to consume all available resources until it reaches an equilibrium matching the rate of food production. So any intelligent species will necessarily evolve in an environment of scarcity where zero and non-zero will be implicitly understood.
Since intelligent life will necessarily evolve in scarcity, quantifying the amount of food is a useful trait that would be selected for. This is why we've now proven that numerous "non-intelligent" animals can count, including salamanders, chicks, mosquitofish, honeybees and more. Intelligent life needs to understand where they are, what they have and what they will need in the future. This involves quantifying, aka counting, no way to escape it.
> There's a vast gap between counting and what mathematics is and encapsulates.
Yes, but you posited intelligent aliens that have their own math. The conclusion that they would not understand zero and repeated application of a construction over zero to build non-zero quantities is impossible. It is the very root of building a theoretical structure of any kind, so if they have math of any kind, they have some kind of counting system that will have an isomorphism to ours.
I honestly can't imagine how you can reach this conclusion with any rigour. Do you agree that aliens will need to consume some energy source to stay alive, which we will call "food"? Do you agree that an understanding of "there's no food in my environment", "there's some food in my environment", and "there's lots of food in my environment" would be selected for? I certainly hope so, so at the very least they will understand the differences between zero, non-zero and "many".
The only way this wouldn't happen is if the environment is so rich in abundance that there is never any absence of food. But this is impossible, because even single-celled life by necessity will reproduce to consume all available resources until it reaches an equilibrium matching the rate of food production. So any intelligent species will necessarily evolve in an environment of scarcity where zero and non-zero will be implicitly understood.
Since intelligent life will necessarily evolve in scarcity, quantifying the amount of food is a useful trait that would be selected for. This is why we've now proven that numerous "non-intelligent" animals can count, including salamanders, chicks, mosquitofish, honeybees and more. Intelligent life needs to understand where they are, what they have and what they will need in the future. This involves quantifying, aka counting, no way to escape it.
> There's a vast gap between counting and what mathematics is and encapsulates.
Yes, but you posited intelligent aliens that have their own math. The conclusion that they would not understand zero and repeated application of a construction over zero to build non-zero quantities is impossible. It is the very root of building a theoretical structure of any kind, so if they have math of any kind, they have some kind of counting system that will have an isomorphism to ours.
But you believe we will eventually.
And you believe that aliens that can count is something that is "arguable".
You're the dot.
And you believe that aliens that can count is something that is "arguable".
You're the dot.
What if aliens have no notion of discrete numbers, what if everything is probabilistic analog math? What about an organism that can see/focus/sense multiple things simultaneously, and a single "thing" is a set. What about a creature whose primary sensing organ is diffuse molecules (smell/taste) instead of sight and use light (instead of meat tentacles) to interact with matter. How might an organism that touches matter with laser fingers and smells the consequences count differently? I wouldn't have the first idea, honestly.
There could be an entirely different paradigm to "counting" and consequently to the fundamentals of maths.
The math that we invented is influenced by our biology and capacity to sense our environment. Our brains and how those brains work with our sense organs. This pattern is likely universal (all life will have methods of sensing their environment and interacting with it), but the methods might be very different.
There could be an entirely different paradigm to "counting" and consequently to the fundamentals of maths.
The math that we invented is influenced by our biology and capacity to sense our environment. Our brains and how those brains work with our sense organs. This pattern is likely universal (all life will have methods of sensing their environment and interacting with it), but the methods might be very different.
>What if aliens have no notion of discrete numbers, what if everything is probabilistic analog math?
0 and 1 are both valid probabilities.
>What about an organism that can see/focus/sense multiple things simultaneously, and a single "thing" is a set.
Its possible, using sets only containing other sets (or possibly the empty set), to construct the integers.
>There could be an entirely different paradigm to "counting" and consequently to the fundamentals of maths.
Systems of mathematical expressions are just like coding languages. The choice is arbitrary, one can always emulate the job of another. Just like how I did with your chosen examples, in principle one can always hack the integers out of whatever system you give me (or hack whatever system out if integers).
0 and 1 are both valid probabilities.
>What about an organism that can see/focus/sense multiple things simultaneously, and a single "thing" is a set.
Its possible, using sets only containing other sets (or possibly the empty set), to construct the integers.
>There could be an entirely different paradigm to "counting" and consequently to the fundamentals of maths.
Systems of mathematical expressions are just like coding languages. The choice is arbitrary, one can always emulate the job of another. Just like how I did with your chosen examples, in principle one can always hack the integers out of whatever system you give me (or hack whatever system out if integers).
I'm sure you can imagine any kind of alien, but that doesn't make your imagined alien logically coherent or physically realizable and consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do you agree that these are real, physical constraints that any imagined alien species must satisfy?
If not, then you have to explain how an alien species might develop that is not subject to physical constraints and evolution by natural selection.
If so, then you must agree that any alien must be able to distinguish two scenarios, "I sense some food here" and "I sense no food here". The basic binary distinction is inescapable, and this is the foundation of true/false, 0 and 1, etc.
If not, then you have to explain how an alien species might develop that is not subject to physical constraints and evolution by natural selection.
If so, then you must agree that any alien must be able to distinguish two scenarios, "I sense some food here" and "I sense no food here". The basic binary distinction is inescapable, and this is the foundation of true/false, 0 and 1, etc.
Consider an alien which subsists on photons, which is a form of life that exists today. We know from heseinberg that the sensing of this food "here" or "there" is nonphysical. Presumably our creature's civilization would require no heisenberg to discover what anyone can see from their own photosensor.
Rather it is the concept of objects remaining in a single place that would require some real mathematical innovation to a creature with no experience of such an idea. And so this distinction of entirely separate logical states, far from being basic or inescapable, is our very human invention. It is useful for creatures like us, who perceive things in one place when they are not really so, who do their computing with sand in a region where it's bountiful, and who encode abstractions as software because doing so in dedicated hardware is more costly.
While it is certainly possible that all intelligent life would have these constraints, there is no particular reason to expect it. What we can expect is that humans will expect others to be too much like ourselves; it's a well-known cognitive defect in our species.
Rather it is the concept of objects remaining in a single place that would require some real mathematical innovation to a creature with no experience of such an idea. And so this distinction of entirely separate logical states, far from being basic or inescapable, is our very human invention. It is useful for creatures like us, who perceive things in one place when they are not really so, who do their computing with sand in a region where it's bountiful, and who encode abstractions as software because doing so in dedicated hardware is more costly.
While it is certainly possible that all intelligent life would have these constraints, there is no particular reason to expect it. What we can expect is that humans will expect others to be too much like ourselves; it's a well-known cognitive defect in our species.
> Consider an alien which subsists on photons, which is a form of life that exists today.
Plants don't just subsist on photons, there are many other ingredients.
> We know from heseinberg that the sensing of this food "here" or "there" is nonphysical.
I don't know what this means. How do you "non-physically" sense photons?
> Rather it is the concept of objects remaining in a single place that would require some real mathematical innovation to a creature with no experience of such an idea. And so this distinction of entirely separate logical states, far from being basic or inescapable, is our very human invention.
Assuming you're talking about some alien made of bosons that aren't subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, you'll note that bosons still interact with fermions in which that principle does apply, so I don't think your argument follows. I admit I don't really understand your premises though so I have no idea what you really meant.
Plants don't just subsist on photons, there are many other ingredients.
> We know from heseinberg that the sensing of this food "here" or "there" is nonphysical.
I don't know what this means. How do you "non-physically" sense photons?
> Rather it is the concept of objects remaining in a single place that would require some real mathematical innovation to a creature with no experience of such an idea. And so this distinction of entirely separate logical states, far from being basic or inescapable, is our very human invention.
Assuming you're talking about some alien made of bosons that aren't subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, you'll note that bosons still interact with fermions in which that principle does apply, so I don't think your argument follows. I admit I don't really understand your premises though so I have no idea what you really meant.
> what if everything is probabilistic analog math?
you said every thing which implies discreteness. Also, probabilities are probabilities of an event (read: something discrete) happening
you said every thing which implies discreteness. Also, probabilities are probabilities of an event (read: something discrete) happening
I think this is one argument that leads to the idea that the structures could be relatable, if a being could count. But who knows? Our mathematics relies strongly on the logical and axiomatic systems used. Things can get weird real quick with small tweaks to these systems, so it doesn’t seem like a stretch that whatever mathematical analogs aliens may possess may be wildly different. And there’s a lot of developments that our perception of reality is shaped by our biology in ways we barely understand.
There are intelligent beings on Earth that don’t seem to even have analogs to human mathematics, at least that are apparent to us. We can barely communicate with a small subset of animals and plants on Earth. So I am just inherently skeptical of claims that alien thinking will bear any resemblance to human thinking.
There are intelligent beings on Earth that don’t seem to even have analogs to human mathematics, at least that are apparent to us. We can barely communicate with a small subset of animals and plants on Earth. So I am just inherently skeptical of claims that alien thinking will bear any resemblance to human thinking.
> Our mathematics relies strongly on the logical and axiomatic systems used.
Yes and no. You don't need more structure than 0 and 1 to describe literally any form of information, and we're using machines right now that use such an encoding. The idea that any organism of sufficient complexity to have any kind of math won't have any notion of 0 and 1 is very implausible.
That said, we certainly won't have the same syntactic descriptions of most structures, but they will certainly be relatable via isomorphisms.
> We can barely communicate with a small subset of animals and plants on Earth. So I am just inherently skeptical that claims that alien thinking will bear any resemblance to human thinking.
But what does that have to do with math? Math isn't about how thinking works, it's about how structures are related to each other. Structures and their relations don't depend on how one thinks. As above, how such structures are described/encoded probably depends on how one thinks (aliens maybe won't use pencil and paper), but the structure being described will be the same and so there will necessarily exist some kind of isomorphism between their "syntax" and ours, as syntax is a projection of the structure.
Even plants have observable behaviour showing a distinction between 0 and 1: they observably move towards the sun when it's shining, and don't move when it's not. This isn't knowledge of "math", but simply to demonstrate that structure is everywhere and life simply must develop some intrinsic understanding of it.
Yes and no. You don't need more structure than 0 and 1 to describe literally any form of information, and we're using machines right now that use such an encoding. The idea that any organism of sufficient complexity to have any kind of math won't have any notion of 0 and 1 is very implausible.
That said, we certainly won't have the same syntactic descriptions of most structures, but they will certainly be relatable via isomorphisms.
> We can barely communicate with a small subset of animals and plants on Earth. So I am just inherently skeptical that claims that alien thinking will bear any resemblance to human thinking.
But what does that have to do with math? Math isn't about how thinking works, it's about how structures are related to each other. Structures and their relations don't depend on how one thinks. As above, how such structures are described/encoded probably depends on how one thinks (aliens maybe won't use pencil and paper), but the structure being described will be the same and so there will necessarily exist some kind of isomorphism between their "syntax" and ours, as syntax is a projection of the structure.
Even plants have observable behaviour showing a distinction between 0 and 1: they observably move towards the sun when it's shining, and don't move when it's not. This isn't knowledge of "math", but simply to demonstrate that structure is everywhere and life simply must develop some intrinsic understanding of it.
What do you mean by “no”? Computers and information theory most definitely rely on logical and axiomatic systems, and particular ones at that.
Mathematics is also shaped by our thinking, which was my point. I think it’s a strong claim that aliens would even have a “mathematics”.
Mathematics is also shaped by our thinking, which was my point. I think it’s a strong claim that aliens would even have a “mathematics”.
> What do you mean by “no”? Computers and information theory most definitely rely on logical and axiomatic systems, and particular ones at that.
I mean "no" to your implicit assertion that such basic logical and axiomatic systems would not evolve in any alien species capable of mathematics. Any such alien will distinguish true and false, will have AND, OR and NOT connectives, and will understand a form of implication (it's inherent to causality). That's all you need to build an understanding of most of our formal systems.
Yes the particular expression of our information theory and computer science depends on specific syntactic choices which implies a surface dissimilarity, but the underlying structure will be the same even when expressed in alien math.
For instance, an alien species might evolve in an environment in which hyperbolic geometry is more natural (say a species large enough that they can sense gravity directly), and so they develop that geometry first. This will have an isomorphism to our formal model of hyperbolic geometry, and we can then explain Euclidean geometry to them from there.
Edit:
> Mathematics is also shaped by our thinking, which was my point.
Yes, but ultimately irrelevant. This drives the pace of mathematical discovery, and what kinds of mathematical formulae we develop or find most interesting, but this is ultimately irrelevant to the fundamentals which underpin all math, which is what this really comes down to.
I mean "no" to your implicit assertion that such basic logical and axiomatic systems would not evolve in any alien species capable of mathematics. Any such alien will distinguish true and false, will have AND, OR and NOT connectives, and will understand a form of implication (it's inherent to causality). That's all you need to build an understanding of most of our formal systems.
Yes the particular expression of our information theory and computer science depends on specific syntactic choices which implies a surface dissimilarity, but the underlying structure will be the same even when expressed in alien math.
For instance, an alien species might evolve in an environment in which hyperbolic geometry is more natural (say a species large enough that they can sense gravity directly), and so they develop that geometry first. This will have an isomorphism to our formal model of hyperbolic geometry, and we can then explain Euclidean geometry to them from there.
Edit:
> Mathematics is also shaped by our thinking, which was my point.
Yes, but ultimately irrelevant. This drives the pace of mathematical discovery, and what kinds of mathematical formulae we develop or find most interesting, but this is ultimately irrelevant to the fundamentals which underpin all math, which is what this really comes down to.
[deleted]
> Any such alien will distinguish true and false, will have AND, OR and NOT connectives, and will understand a form of implication (it's inherent to causality).
Implication doesn't have anything to do with causality and in fact the concept of implication in mathematical logic is broken. See: the paradoxes of material implication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implicat...
To simplify, F -> T (true if false) is a true implication so, for example, I can say that "I am the pope therefore it rained yesterday" and, if it rained yesterday, then the implication is true even though I am not the pope. There has been endless grumbling among philosophers and mathematicians because of this kind of paradox but it is an inevitable result of the axiomatic definition of implication by means of a truth table, and there's no way to correct it without also changing the truth tables of disjunction and negation (because A OR NOT B is equivalent to NOT B THEREFORE A, i.e. because of the way disjunction and negation work, false implies true; you will have to work through this on your own and hit your head on your desk very hard, many times, just as I did when I first realised what a mess this is).
In other words, either we accept human axioms of logic, and we have paradoxes of implication, or we don't have paradoxes of implication but then we don't accept human axioms of logic. An alien civilisation may well choose to not accept any axioms of logic that lead to paradoxes of material implication, so they won't have human axioms of logic and, if their formal system is sound, they won't have human logic, and therefore, no human mathematics.
In other words, no, aliens will not necessarily have the same mathematics as humans.
Implication doesn't have anything to do with causality and in fact the concept of implication in mathematical logic is broken. See: the paradoxes of material implication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implicat...
To simplify, F -> T (true if false) is a true implication so, for example, I can say that "I am the pope therefore it rained yesterday" and, if it rained yesterday, then the implication is true even though I am not the pope. There has been endless grumbling among philosophers and mathematicians because of this kind of paradox but it is an inevitable result of the axiomatic definition of implication by means of a truth table, and there's no way to correct it without also changing the truth tables of disjunction and negation (because A OR NOT B is equivalent to NOT B THEREFORE A, i.e. because of the way disjunction and negation work, false implies true; you will have to work through this on your own and hit your head on your desk very hard, many times, just as I did when I first realised what a mess this is).
In other words, either we accept human axioms of logic, and we have paradoxes of implication, or we don't have paradoxes of implication but then we don't accept human axioms of logic. An alien civilisation may well choose to not accept any axioms of logic that lead to paradoxes of material implication, so they won't have human axioms of logic and, if their formal system is sound, they won't have human logic, and therefore, no human mathematics.
In other words, no, aliens will not necessarily have the same mathematics as humans.
> Implication doesn't have anything to do with causality and in fact the concept of implication in mathematical logic is broken
I disagree, it's seems very obvious that if-then connectives are a crude causal description. Yes, the crude form is problematic because it's crude.
I disagree, it's seems very obvious that if-then connectives are a crude causal description. Yes, the crude form is problematic because it's crude.
>Math isn't about how thinking works, it's about how structures are related to each other. Structures and their relations don't depend on how one thinks.
All the things you see around you are an outcome your brain processing. That applies to any structures that you abstract from that as well. Math is an exploration of how the brain does that.
All the things you see around you are an outcome your brain processing. That applies to any structures that you abstract from that as well. Math is an exploration of how the brain does that.
Counting implies the ability to perceive the discrete, but such discreteness may not be obvious to a shapeless creature living in a liquid or a gaseous substance.
> Counting implies the ability to perceive the discrete, but such discreteness may not be obvious to a shapeless creature living in a liquid or a gaseous substance.
Is a shapeless creature even logically coherent? Intelligence needed for math requires making distinctions, and distinctions imply structure, and structure is logically incompatible with true "shapelessness".
Is a shapeless creature even logically coherent? Intelligence needed for math requires making distinctions, and distinctions imply structure, and structure is logically incompatible with true "shapelessness".
> Is a shapeless creature even logically coherent?
Do you see how your argument is self-defeating?
According to logic that humans have developed, there is such thing as a "shape". But Western philosophers have pondered the innateness of a "shape" or an "object" from very early on (Plato, through Leibniz, beyond).
"Shape" and "logic" are both human constructs articulating "structure", another human construct.
A shapeless creature doesn't need to be "logically coherent" to exhibit intelligence; logic, truth, and structure are features that have emerged from human intelligence. I wouldn't accept the argument that an entity must exhibit the same features to qualify as intelligent simply because humans have.
Do you see how your argument is self-defeating?
According to logic that humans have developed, there is such thing as a "shape". But Western philosophers have pondered the innateness of a "shape" or an "object" from very early on (Plato, through Leibniz, beyond).
"Shape" and "logic" are both human constructs articulating "structure", another human construct.
A shapeless creature doesn't need to be "logically coherent" to exhibit intelligence; logic, truth, and structure are features that have emerged from human intelligence. I wouldn't accept the argument that an entity must exhibit the same features to qualify as intelligent simply because humans have.
> According to logic that humans have developed, there is such thing as a "shape"
There is such a thing as "structure", of which "shape" is an instance, yes.
> "Shape" and "logic" are both human constructs articulating "structure", another human construct.
Structure is not a human concept. We have particular conceptions of structure, but structure exists, period. 0 != 1, they have different structure. This is indisputable.
> A shapeless creature doesn't need to be "logically coherent" to exhibit intelligence
If you think that reality does not have to be logically coherent, or that that does not necessarily imply that any creatures within reality have to have a logically coherent description consistent with coherent natural laws, then you're talking about a fantasy world of your imagination and I don't think there's anything further to discuss.
There is such a thing as "structure", of which "shape" is an instance, yes.
> "Shape" and "logic" are both human constructs articulating "structure", another human construct.
Structure is not a human concept. We have particular conceptions of structure, but structure exists, period. 0 != 1, they have different structure. This is indisputable.
> A shapeless creature doesn't need to be "logically coherent" to exhibit intelligence
If you think that reality does not have to be logically coherent, or that that does not necessarily imply that any creatures within reality have to have a logically coherent description consistent with coherent natural laws, then you're talking about a fantasy world of your imagination and I don't think there's anything further to discuss.
If we can conceive of shapeless blobs living in a liquid then surely they can conceive of being like us.
Most mathematical concepts are far from obvious to humans (lots of people seem to struggle with the continuum hypothesis for example), yet we can still work with them no problem. So even if this shapeless intelligent creature didn't start with discrete mathematics, they'd probably invent it eventually.
>They won't have a concept of zero? They won't have a concept of 1=successor(0)? I find this very, very hard to believe
Most of the world did mathematics for a long time without zero (I hope you know that most number systems like Roman didn't have zero till that eventually came from India, and we evolved to have the current number system). Who knows what direction different number systems might have taken if they didn't come in contact with zero.
Most of the world did mathematics for a long time without zero (I hope you know that most number systems like Roman didn't have zero till that eventually came from India, and we evolved to have the current number system). Who knows what direction different number systems might have taken if they didn't come in contact with zero.
That's mostly irrelevant. The naturals starting from 1 are isomorphic to the naturals starting at 0, which is why math didn't need zero for so long.
How is it irrelevant to this discussion? Parent proposed that aliens will have zero by posing that question. I gave an example from our own earth indicating intelligent life can manage without zero.
> I gave an example from our own earth indicating intelligent life can manage without zero.
Firstly, I disagree that humanity managed without zero. Literally everyone had an intuitive understanding of zero, they just didn't have it in their formal systems that were being studied by philosophers. For instance, try walking walking up to a vendor in Ancient Greece and just taking something without paying.
Secondly, it's largely irrelevant because a lot of math with zero can be mapped to math without zero with no loss of information, so even if aliens used math without zero there would be no trouble communicating as there would still be an understandable formal correspondence.
Firstly, I disagree that humanity managed without zero. Literally everyone had an intuitive understanding of zero, they just didn't have it in their formal systems that were being studied by philosophers. For instance, try walking walking up to a vendor in Ancient Greece and just taking something without paying.
Secondly, it's largely irrelevant because a lot of math with zero can be mapped to math without zero with no loss of information, so even if aliens used math without zero there would be no trouble communicating as there would still be an understandable formal correspondence.
[deleted]
Not if you take into account the special properties of 0. (Generally speaking, a structure that admits a neutral element with respect to addition is not isomorphic to one that does not.)
You are correct, hence why I initially said it's mostly irrelevant. I should have qualified the claim about isomorphism as well. Still, quite a bit of math maps 1:1 without zero, so you can build a common understanding even if they don't have zero.
I also don't think any alien species with which we will communicate will not understand zero. It just seems impossible. Before philosophers came up with zero in formal models, everyone intuitively understood the concept. Every animals knows when they have no food vs. when they have some food. Humans in ancient civilizations also couldn't just take something without paying.
I also don't think any alien species with which we will communicate will not understand zero. It just seems impossible. Before philosophers came up with zero in formal models, everyone intuitively understood the concept. Every animals knows when they have no food vs. when they have some food. Humans in ancient civilizations also couldn't just take something without paying.
[deleted]
What if aliens did not perceive distinct objects, but rather that everything observable is part of a greater whole? Would they need counting numbers?
Counting numbers are such a basic foundational aspect of all life that it's hard to imagine any "intelligent" being not understanding the concepts of 1, 2, 3, etc.
You will have to explain how this property might be selected for by evolution by natural selection before I can even understand what you're suggesting.
[deleted]
I think alien analogs to mathematics are unlikely to match ours.
Almost certainly not, but they're probably isomorphic. And either way if we show them our axioms they will be able to validate our mathematics and vice versa.
The truths of mathematics are of the form 'if A then B'. Even if they don't start at A or even accept A as true, but will should still get B if they assume A.
Almost certainly not, but they're probably isomorphic. And either way if we show them our axioms they will be able to validate our mathematics and vice versa.
The truths of mathematics are of the form 'if A then B'. Even if they don't start at A or even accept A as true, but will should still get B if they assume A.
> they're probably isomorphic
That's a strong statement. I'd probably talk about homomorphism.
That's a strong statement. I'd probably talk about homomorphism.
> Even humans do not fully agree on mathematics. There is no “one” mathematics because mathematics is the human exploration of idealized objects using a variety of human logical systems.
Maybe not in its entirety, but I find it hard to imagine that any civilization as advanced as ours (let's say a civilization that manages to harness nuclear fission, just to set a baseline) will not come up with concepts such as prime numbers, real number, complex numbers, calculus, etc. If they do that, they will inevitably find the same structures we found using function theory. They will know about differential equations and prove similar theorems about them as we did. And the Pythagorean theorem is a universal truth that holds everywhere.
Maybe not in its entirety, but I find it hard to imagine that any civilization as advanced as ours (let's say a civilization that manages to harness nuclear fission, just to set a baseline) will not come up with concepts such as prime numbers, real number, complex numbers, calculus, etc. If they do that, they will inevitably find the same structures we found using function theory. They will know about differential equations and prove similar theorems about them as we did. And the Pythagorean theorem is a universal truth that holds everywhere.
> And the Pythagorean theorem is a universal truth that holds everywhere.
Or at least in every world where there exist straight lines, yes? For instance:
> The Pythagorean theorem is derived from the axioms of Euclidean geometry, and in fact, were the Pythagorean theorem to fail for some right triangle, then the plane in which this triangle is contained cannot be Euclidean. More precisely, the Pythagorean theorem implies, and is implied by, Euclid's Parallel (Fifth) Postulate.[59][60] Thus, right triangles in a non-Euclidean geometry[61] do not satisfy the Pythagorean theorem. For example, in spherical geometry, all three sides of the right triangle (say a, b, and c) bounding an octant of the unit sphere have length equal to π/2, and all its angles are right angles, which violates the Pythagorean theorem because {\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=2c^{2}>c^{2}}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Non-Euclid...
Or at least in every world where there exist straight lines, yes? For instance:
> The Pythagorean theorem is derived from the axioms of Euclidean geometry, and in fact, were the Pythagorean theorem to fail for some right triangle, then the plane in which this triangle is contained cannot be Euclidean. More precisely, the Pythagorean theorem implies, and is implied by, Euclid's Parallel (Fifth) Postulate.[59][60] Thus, right triangles in a non-Euclidean geometry[61] do not satisfy the Pythagorean theorem. For example, in spherical geometry, all three sides of the right triangle (say a, b, and c) bounding an octant of the unit sphere have length equal to π/2, and all its angles are right angles, which violates the Pythagorean theorem because {\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=2c^{2}>c^{2}}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Non-Euclid...
> real number, complex numbers, calculus, etc
Some humans believe that the prominence of real numbers is a historical accident. It seems quite plausible to me that a human society, much less an alien one, would go down a mathematical evolutionary path based on the constructable numbers and the computable numbers.
Regardless of whether we eventually find the same structures, there are things that we might consider basic which they find esoteric and vice-versa.
Heaven forbid we encounter an alien civilization that discovered an O(log n) algorithm for integer factorization before they invented steam power.
Some humans believe that the prominence of real numbers is a historical accident. It seems quite plausible to me that a human society, much less an alien one, would go down a mathematical evolutionary path based on the constructable numbers and the computable numbers.
Regardless of whether we eventually find the same structures, there are things that we might consider basic which they find esoteric and vice-versa.
Heaven forbid we encounter an alien civilization that discovered an O(log n) algorithm for integer factorization before they invented steam power.
> Some humans believe that the prominence of real numbers is a historical accident.
That is a great point. The continuum is contentious and pretty highly debated philosophically.
I also encourage people interested in that to also learn about smooth infinitesimal analysis. Just a small tweak in the underlying logic and model yields unique mathematics and questions established assumptions.
That is a great point. The continuum is contentious and pretty highly debated philosophically.
I also encourage people interested in that to also learn about smooth infinitesimal analysis. Just a small tweak in the underlying logic and model yields unique mathematics and questions established assumptions.
In that list prime numbers might not be a thing.
The statement that "the truths of mathematics would be the same, because they are true by definition" is correct. Mathematics exist independently of biology or perception of reality. It is just a collection of arbitrary abstract definitions and what follows from them. The alien species may come up with different base definitions that they find more useful or interesting. But they would derive the same conclusions as we would if they were starting from the same definitions and applying the same abstract rules.
> Mathematics exist independently of biology or perception of reality.
Is there a “proof” of that? How could a proof exist? You’d probably win several awards if you had one.
> It is just a collection of arbitrary abstract definitions and what follows from them.
… created by humans.
Is there a “proof” of that? How could a proof exist? You’d probably win several awards if you had one.
> It is just a collection of arbitrary abstract definitions and what follows from them.
… created by humans.
Is there a “proof” of that?
It's how we define the concept "mathematics". If a result was dependant on "biology or perception of reality" or anything else outside its defining axioms, it wouldn't be mathematics.
It's how we define the concept "mathematics". If a result was dependant on "biology or perception of reality" or anything else outside its defining axioms, it wouldn't be mathematics.
I'm sorry, but I just disagree that that's how mathematics is defined and that it doesn't depend on our biology and perception, because we are making those definitions.
A book I might recommend and that I'm going through at the moment is Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez. The origin and meaning of mathematics is strongly influenced by cognitive sciene, and thus biology. I've been downvoted, but this is not a totally novel or off the rails idea. It is basically accepted in robotics that embodied cognition is how you get a robot to understand and perceive its environment. Where do you think that idea came from?
A book I might recommend and that I'm going through at the moment is Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez. The origin and meaning of mathematics is strongly influenced by cognitive sciene, and thus biology. I've been downvoted, but this is not a totally novel or off the rails idea. It is basically accepted in robotics that embodied cognition is how you get a robot to understand and perceive its environment. Where do you think that idea came from?
A book I might recommend and that I'm going through at the moment is Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being
I haven't read that book, but I did just read the wikipedia page for it, for what it's worth. Based on that I feel it's more that they're arguing that the path we've taken and the metaphors we've used while exploring our way to our current understanding of mathematics is based on our biology. Our biology has greatly affected the order we've discovered things and how we understand those thing and how we actually 'do' math day to day, and all that I agree with. It's also very likely that aliens will have taken a very different path and have very different metaphors and proofs for understanding and doing their version of what we call mathematics. Because of this it might very well be very difficult for us to initially understand each others mathematics.
Indeed looking through human history our philosophical understanding of mathematics fundamentally 'is' has changed many times. Yet mathematical truth's we've found along the way have always remained constant (barring errors in calculation or reasoning) even as our understanding of mathematics has changed.
I believe that once we gotten passed all that both us and the aliens will find that, at the core, we both agree on what is "mathematically" true.
I will however also concede that some of the arguments in this thread has made me slightly less sure than I was before, so that is something I guess.
I haven't read that book, but I did just read the wikipedia page for it, for what it's worth. Based on that I feel it's more that they're arguing that the path we've taken and the metaphors we've used while exploring our way to our current understanding of mathematics is based on our biology. Our biology has greatly affected the order we've discovered things and how we understand those thing and how we actually 'do' math day to day, and all that I agree with. It's also very likely that aliens will have taken a very different path and have very different metaphors and proofs for understanding and doing their version of what we call mathematics. Because of this it might very well be very difficult for us to initially understand each others mathematics.
Indeed looking through human history our philosophical understanding of mathematics fundamentally 'is' has changed many times. Yet mathematical truth's we've found along the way have always remained constant (barring errors in calculation or reasoning) even as our understanding of mathematics has changed.
I believe that once we gotten passed all that both us and the aliens will find that, at the core, we both agree on what is "mathematically" true.
I will however also concede that some of the arguments in this thread has made me slightly less sure than I was before, so that is something I guess.
> Mathematics exist independently of biology or perception of reality.
Even the concept of "number" itself is almost certainly an artifact of perception that enabled our ancestors to survive our niche, planetary environment, and not an inherent feature of objective reality.
Aliens, evolved to survive in another environment entirely with a different set of initial conditions, almost certainly would not have the same, nor even any, understanding of "number".
Would we consider such aliens a civilization or some kind of insensate "process"?
Even the concept of "number" itself is almost certainly an artifact of perception that enabled our ancestors to survive our niche, planetary environment, and not an inherent feature of objective reality.
Aliens, evolved to survive in another environment entirely with a different set of initial conditions, almost certainly would not have the same, nor even any, understanding of "number".
Would we consider such aliens a civilization or some kind of insensate "process"?
Um no.
I'm so over this deconstructionist "reality is your perception" line.
Numbers are a thing. In fact they're one of the most basic observable things about the universe. And the concept if a number holds up all the way down to the quantum level. I.e. space and time are discrete and therefore space and time can both be COUNTED. Counting is literally one of the most basic and early achievements of human cognition and were gonna act like we just made it up?
Absolute silliness.
I'm so over this deconstructionist "reality is your perception" line.
Numbers are a thing. In fact they're one of the most basic observable things about the universe. And the concept if a number holds up all the way down to the quantum level. I.e. space and time are discrete and therefore space and time can both be COUNTED. Counting is literally one of the most basic and early achievements of human cognition and were gonna act like we just made it up?
Absolute silliness.
> I'm so over this deconstructionist "reality is your perception" line.
What makes you completely reject that? I don't think it has as much to do with deconstructionism as it does embodied cognition. We keep learning more and more about how biology and physiology and evolutionary pressures affect and inform cognition and thus perception. I was recently reading about how there have been scientific studies that seem to suggest that certain animals seem to experience time differently that we do. So you could say "time is a thing", but yet, it appears that it is not the same thing across lifeforms. There are animals that sense gravitational and electromagnetic fields, something we cannot do. Would it make sense to them to say "all beings can read these fields because we do"?
I think the problem is that it is all too easy to fall into the trap in thinking that alien lifeforms would be like us. There's a multitude of evidence of that here on Earth in the variety of life, despite even coming from the same origin.
What makes you completely reject that? I don't think it has as much to do with deconstructionism as it does embodied cognition. We keep learning more and more about how biology and physiology and evolutionary pressures affect and inform cognition and thus perception. I was recently reading about how there have been scientific studies that seem to suggest that certain animals seem to experience time differently that we do. So you could say "time is a thing", but yet, it appears that it is not the same thing across lifeforms. There are animals that sense gravitational and electromagnetic fields, something we cannot do. Would it make sense to them to say "all beings can read these fields because we do"?
I think the problem is that it is all too easy to fall into the trap in thinking that alien lifeforms would be like us. There's a multitude of evidence of that here on Earth in the variety of life, despite even coming from the same origin.
> There are animals that sense gravitational and electromagnetic fields, something we cannot do.
That actually proves the fact that reality is not simply someone's perception. (We humans do not perceive these fields, and so it took scientific advances for us to discover them as part of the objective reality.)
That actually proves the fact that reality is not simply someone's perception. (We humans do not perceive these fields, and so it took scientific advances for us to discover them as part of the objective reality.)
Yes, thank you. This line of reasoning is so painfully flawed and in a lot of cases outright dangerous or unhealthy.
There is an objective reality that exists beyond our perceptions. But our perceptions are based on that objective reality to some extent. We're not just making shit up. That doesn't make any sense.
There is an objective reality that exists beyond our perceptions. But our perceptions are based on that objective reality to some extent. We're not just making shit up. That doesn't make any sense.
This is a great rebuttal, and gestures towards what I was getting at. Thanks.
> "reality is your perception"
You imagined what I meant so vividly that you literally made up a quote!
Try responding to what I actually wrote, and if it's unclear, asking with some humility.
I'm not even sure what your objection is, exactly. Nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote.
You imagined what I meant so vividly that you literally made up a quote!
Try responding to what I actually wrote, and if it's unclear, asking with some humility.
I'm not even sure what your objection is, exactly. Nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote.
> I'm so over this deconstructionist "reality is your perception" line.
Kant would have a field day with this statement
Kant would have a field day with this statement
I'm pretty sure that any sufficiently advanced species that does any kind of mechanical engineering will have maths that is homomorphic to analysis.
I also take issue with the author's assumptions. Consider the case of AIs trained to identify new variables in a system of pendulums:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-intelligenc...
Different truths that describe the same system.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-intelligenc...
Different truths that describe the same system.
Isn't the basic math largely driven by attempts to understand and quantify the world around us? In such case, it depends on more universal concepts like distance, time, speed, acceleration etc. Concepts which I would imagine to be familiar to any intelligent being that takes a physical form. I can't imagine an alien wondering about a period of a pendulum and arriving at an answer that's really different from ours.
Funny that you chose pendulums:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-intelligenc...
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-intelligenc...
I guess he was thinking of arithmetic.
In any case, any model which includes infinity (and Peano arithmetic already does) is pure convention and unconsciously assumes a lot of things.
Finitary induction may make sense as something "universal". Further than that, we are making things up as we go (and I am a professional mathematician). The fact that they work to solve real problems does not make them more real.
In any case, any model which includes infinity (and Peano arithmetic already does) is pure convention and unconsciously assumes a lot of things.
Finitary induction may make sense as something "universal". Further than that, we are making things up as we go (and I am a professional mathematician). The fact that they work to solve real problems does not make them more real.
More to the point, our mathematics work to solve real problems up to a certain point. For instance our mathematics have not yet been able to identify polynomial-time solutions to problems in the class NP and it's possible that this is exactly because our mathematics are inadequate to express such solutions, if such solutions do exist (and Donald Knuth, for example, believes they do). In which case we'll never know whether P = NP (or we will, but it won't be any use, similar to what Knuth, again, suggests).
It is a tautology that the famous incompleteness results in mathematics and computer science are the result of the axioms of arithmetic used to derive them. Would Gödel be able to derive his incompleteness result without Peano's axiomatisation of arithmetic? Not really. Arithmetic is axiomatic and our axioms of it are arbitrary and ad hoc. Because they're axioms. Who says aliens would come up with the same ones?
There are huge assumptions made in this thread that only indicate the brief time that the contributors have given to thinking about all this stuff. If you think about it for a couple of minutes, sure, it all feels very natural. Zero, infinity, division, mathematical logic, set theory, etc. But if you think about it a bit more, and then do a bit more than think, and go read about it, it's obvious that those are just the ideas that we chose to go with, not the only ones that exist, and certainly not the only ones proposed by mathematicians, logicians, computer scientists and philosophers over the years. For instance, Hilbert was a finitarian, division doesn't work with zero, zero doesn't work with division, dividing an infinity multiplies it, material implication leads to counter-intuitiveness paradoxes, set theory with only the membership relation leads to paradoxes, etc etc etc. Mathematics is full of unnatural holes that need constant patching up, and there is nothing to say that it is in any way, shape or form "real", let alone universal as so many people in this thread seem to be saying.
It is a tautology that the famous incompleteness results in mathematics and computer science are the result of the axioms of arithmetic used to derive them. Would Gödel be able to derive his incompleteness result without Peano's axiomatisation of arithmetic? Not really. Arithmetic is axiomatic and our axioms of it are arbitrary and ad hoc. Because they're axioms. Who says aliens would come up with the same ones?
There are huge assumptions made in this thread that only indicate the brief time that the contributors have given to thinking about all this stuff. If you think about it for a couple of minutes, sure, it all feels very natural. Zero, infinity, division, mathematical logic, set theory, etc. But if you think about it a bit more, and then do a bit more than think, and go read about it, it's obvious that those are just the ideas that we chose to go with, not the only ones that exist, and certainly not the only ones proposed by mathematicians, logicians, computer scientists and philosophers over the years. For instance, Hilbert was a finitarian, division doesn't work with zero, zero doesn't work with division, dividing an infinity multiplies it, material implication leads to counter-intuitiveness paradoxes, set theory with only the membership relation leads to paradoxes, etc etc etc. Mathematics is full of unnatural holes that need constant patching up, and there is nothing to say that it is in any way, shape or form "real", let alone universal as so many people in this thread seem to be saying.
I think mathematics could be defined as that part of philosophy which is self-evident and universal. The value of Pi isn't contingent?
Aliens may have different biochemistry, but it would be made from the same chemical elements as ours. Likewise their formal systems may be wildly different from ours, but they will still be based on form (even implication is ultimately a very simple formal structure. Math doesn't even require causality as a prerequisite!)
Last but not least. many people (Kurt Gödel among them) believe that mathematical thought is actually perception of real phenomenon in a "higher" plane of reality, which, if true, seems to me to imply that alien mathematicians would be perceiving the same phenomenon as humans, literally. In this view, the "truths of mathematics" are literally the same "objects" for them and for us.
Aliens may have different biochemistry, but it would be made from the same chemical elements as ours. Likewise their formal systems may be wildly different from ours, but they will still be based on form (even implication is ultimately a very simple formal structure. Math doesn't even require causality as a prerequisite!)
Last but not least. many people (Kurt Gödel among them) believe that mathematical thought is actually perception of real phenomenon in a "higher" plane of reality, which, if true, seems to me to imply that alien mathematicians would be perceiving the same phenomenon as humans, literally. In this view, the "truths of mathematics" are literally the same "objects" for them and for us.
> there’s the possibility that our mathematics and overall perception of reality is shaped by our biology in far deeper ways than we imagine and currently understand.
Almost certainly true. We as evolved creatures do not perceive objective reality, but only enough reality as to enable our ancestors to survive our very niche environment (niche relative to the entirety of the universe). Our science and mathematics model only our perceptions of reality, and not reality itself.
It is folly to assume that an alien, evolved along an entirely different set of initial conditions, would share our perceptions of reality. Our mathematics, modeling as it does our perceptions, serves human needs and perceptions only.
Almost certainly true. We as evolved creatures do not perceive objective reality, but only enough reality as to enable our ancestors to survive our very niche environment (niche relative to the entirety of the universe). Our science and mathematics model only our perceptions of reality, and not reality itself.
It is folly to assume that an alien, evolved along an entirely different set of initial conditions, would share our perceptions of reality. Our mathematics, modeling as it does our perceptions, serves human needs and perceptions only.
Fully agreed, the way I'd approach this would be that the said mathematical proofs about certain truths "by definition" rely on human logic as the main building block and substrate. Logic is a human basis of agreeing which seems necessary evolutionary. Counting and separating observable objects turned out to be quite necessary for survival as well. Hence this statement seems to imply that aliens would need to have a corresponding logic reasoning system and observational abilities. If that was the case perhaps there would be a strong inclination to believe that the isomorphic reasoning would be deduced.
> Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans.
Can you give an example of a mathematical concept which could be different?
I believe that math is universal. We may use models to understand it (infinity, perfect circles, etc.), but the underlying mathematical truth is independent of humans. The same is true for science. There are physical laws which we look to discover. We use models in science to understand them, but the models are not the same as the underlying truth
Can you give an example of a mathematical concept which could be different?
I believe that math is universal. We may use models to understand it (infinity, perfect circles, etc.), but the underlying mathematical truth is independent of humans. The same is true for science. There are physical laws which we look to discover. We use models in science to understand them, but the models are not the same as the underlying truth
> I believe that math is universal
The only thing that is "universal" is Nature itself. Mathematics, on the other hand, is a reflection of Nature in the human mind; or, put differently, it's Nature's language we humans are capable of understanding. It is therefore conceivable that other creatures, far removed from us, could "hear" a language that is just as far removed from ours.
The only thing that is "universal" is Nature itself. Mathematics, on the other hand, is a reflection of Nature in the human mind; or, put differently, it's Nature's language we humans are capable of understanding. It is therefore conceivable that other creatures, far removed from us, could "hear" a language that is just as far removed from ours.
> I believe that math is universal. We may use models to understand it (infinity, perfect circles, etc.), but the underlying mathematical truth is independent of humans.
Humans (probably) perceive and understand a slim subset of reality. We have an illusion of universalism of our perceptions because we perceive nothing outside of them. Also, we are the dominant species of the planet, which gives us a reason to believe that our perceptions are "more accurate" than, say, a bat's.
Personally, I don't think an alien's perceptions and understanding would contradict our own, but if it's given that our perceptions are a subset of reality, then an alien's understanding might include elements of reality that we literally cannot perceive or even understand.
> Can you give an example of a mathematical concept which could be different?
By definition, no. But, hmm. What would number and a mathematical system look like from creatures who thought in logarithms? Or in primes? Or that had no concept of "number"? What if even "greater than" and "less than" had no relevance to an alien civilization?
Humans (probably) perceive and understand a slim subset of reality. We have an illusion of universalism of our perceptions because we perceive nothing outside of them. Also, we are the dominant species of the planet, which gives us a reason to believe that our perceptions are "more accurate" than, say, a bat's.
Personally, I don't think an alien's perceptions and understanding would contradict our own, but if it's given that our perceptions are a subset of reality, then an alien's understanding might include elements of reality that we literally cannot perceive or even understand.
> Can you give an example of a mathematical concept which could be different?
By definition, no. But, hmm. What would number and a mathematical system look like from creatures who thought in logarithms? Or in primes? Or that had no concept of "number"? What if even "greater than" and "less than" had no relevance to an alien civilization?
But see I don't think think what your saying contradicts the above post. If our subset intersects with the alien subset of perception, then we both will have a perception of an underlying truth, and we could conceivably understand the alien models and vice versa because they address the same subject.
UP said that mathematics is universal. I believe it models only our perception and understanding, which are informed by our biological, evolutionary imperatives.
Reality itself is beyond us. All that we have at our disposal are our perceptions, which is what we are modeling when we "do math". Mathematics is not universal, it's a language that we use to communicate what we perceive to other humans.
It's speculative, whether an alien species, with a perceptual and cognitive system evolved entirely elsewhere under other pressures, would have an understanding that intersects with our subset of reality. I personally think it's unlikely. What that would mean is that we wouldn't be able to communicate, never mind trade technology and mathematical ideas.
Reality itself is beyond us. All that we have at our disposal are our perceptions, which is what we are modeling when we "do math". Mathematics is not universal, it's a language that we use to communicate what we perceive to other humans.
It's speculative, whether an alien species, with a perceptual and cognitive system evolved entirely elsewhere under other pressures, would have an understanding that intersects with our subset of reality. I personally think it's unlikely. What that would mean is that we wouldn't be able to communicate, never mind trade technology and mathematical ideas.
> It's speculative, whether an alien species, with a perceptual and cognitive system evolved entirely elsewhere under other pressures, would have an understanding that intersects with our subset of reality. I personally think it's unlikely. What that would mean is that we wouldn't be able to communicate, never mind trade technology and mathematical ideas.
I mean, maybe, but this is conveniently unprovable, much like the flying spaghetti monster, since you are saying we could not communicate because our slices of reality don't intersect. I disagree and think that most likely we would live in a reality that was largely the same, but I guess we'll never know!
I mean, maybe, but this is conveniently unprovable, much like the flying spaghetti monster, since you are saying we could not communicate because our slices of reality don't intersect. I disagree and think that most likely we would live in a reality that was largely the same, but I guess we'll never know!
> this is conveniently unprovable
Perhaps. I was responding to the assertion that Mathematics exist independently of biology or perception of reality which is at least as unprovable
Perhaps. I was responding to the assertion that Mathematics exist independently of biology or perception of reality which is at least as unprovable
All of this is arguments for why our understanding of science and the nature of the universe might differ. It can also explain how our mathematics might evolve very differently and we will have made different mathematical discoveries and do math in very different ways (all of which I agree are very likely). However it doesn't explain how an alien race will look at one of our mathematical proofs that we have proven True and be able to prove that it is False.
> However it doesn't explain how an alien race will look at one of our mathematical proofs that we have proven True and be able to prove that it is False.
Where is this coming from? Is this relevant to what I wrote?
Where is this coming from? Is this relevant to what I wrote?
If both their math and our math agree on what statements are true and false then both our maths are functionally the same.
Well, sure, because the term "math" already presupposes a lot. There are two possibilities, here:
1) Math describes reality, so human math and alien math are the same thing, just different perspectives of reality and so, ultimately compatible.
2) Math is a language that humans use to describe their perceptions of reality to other humans. Perception is not reality, but a kind of isomorphism or pared-down heuristic, driven as it is by the evolutionary imperative to streamline for survival. Therefore a language that appears to be universal will only make sense to entities that employ the same perceptual framework for understanding, which is to say, human beings.
I agree that something that is "true" in human math will not be directly "false" in an alien math. 2+2 really does equal 4. The question is whether 2+2=4 is relevant or even understandable to an alien.
1) Math describes reality, so human math and alien math are the same thing, just different perspectives of reality and so, ultimately compatible.
2) Math is a language that humans use to describe their perceptions of reality to other humans. Perception is not reality, but a kind of isomorphism or pared-down heuristic, driven as it is by the evolutionary imperative to streamline for survival. Therefore a language that appears to be universal will only make sense to entities that employ the same perceptual framework for understanding, which is to say, human beings.
I agree that something that is "true" in human math will not be directly "false" in an alien math. 2+2 really does equal 4. The question is whether 2+2=4 is relevant or even understandable to an alien.
While it's true that there's no consensus on this topic, that doesn't imply that people can't make claims one way or the other. In fact, the claims that the essay makes (Platonism) are very commonly made.
Somethings in mathematics are constant, both here and on alpha centauri, like the circumference of a circle divide by its diameter is Π or the hypotenuse squared is the sum of each leg squared in a right triangle etc.
But neither of those facts are true in non-Euclidean geometries like Spherical Geometry or Hyperbolic Geometry. The jury is still out on whether the universe is flat or has some sort of curvature. Meanwhile spherical geometry is fundamentally useful because we live on a sphere, not on a plane, and it is more accurate at modeling the 2-D space that we navigate in.
My point being, assumptions get baked-in to systems in surprising ways. Even something seemingly-objective like math. Especially when you're using it as the basis for communication, then what counts as "basic" or "fundamental" or "standard" reflects a perspective, not a fundamental truth.
It's likely their mathematical systems would eventually reach the same conclusions as ours, but the prominence or significance of fields or results (like circles and triangles) might be radically different. Even though we view those components as absolutely fundamental, it's possible an equivalent system could be built from different primitives.
My point being, assumptions get baked-in to systems in surprising ways. Even something seemingly-objective like math. Especially when you're using it as the basis for communication, then what counts as "basic" or "fundamental" or "standard" reflects a perspective, not a fundamental truth.
It's likely their mathematical systems would eventually reach the same conclusions as ours, but the prominence or significance of fields or results (like circles and triangles) might be radically different. Even though we view those components as absolutely fundamental, it's possible an equivalent system could be built from different primitives.
> There is no “one” mathematics because mathematics is the human exploration of idealized objects using a variety of human logical systems.
But isn't the whole point to to do our best to bypass human-centric systems of understanding, and arrive at the "core truth" of the matter? Whether that's possible is another matter, but even if it's not possible, surely it's something that can be theoretically approached, and I would wager is precisely what PG means by "one mathematics."
> And then there’s the possibility that our mathematics and overall perception of reality is shaped by our biology in far deeper ways than we imagine and currently understand.
Yes, but also no. Consider some first principles:
-We have every reason to believe that any and all life would not live forever, or if the life in question is "intelligent" (a nebulous/human-centric term, for sure) would at the very least conceive of other things not lasting forever (such as stars, or even the universe itself [or, if you want to be really generous, "this current iteration of the universe"]). -Therefore we can reasonably assume that all "intelligent" life in the universe would understand the concept of scarcity (either via finite lifespans/time, food/energy sources, both, or something else), non-infinity. I'd go so far as to say that any life form that doesn't understand its own mortality or other such limits should be not be considered "intelligent," at least for the reasons of this discussion. -Therefore we can reasonably assume that said intelligent life would somehow conceptualize a binary state (you're either alive or you're not, you either have access to an energy source or you don't, etc), and consequently would somehow or another understand the concept of "zero," "nothing," etc, as well as its opposite, "something." And from there, would necessarily discern the differences between two states of "somethings" (the state of "something" that is "one" is different than the state of "something" that is "two").
I know I'm using a lot of loaded terms here -- "reasonably," "assume," "discerning" -- but just like we look for life by looking for the markers of life that we know were necessary for Earth (carbon, water, etc), we can look for intelligence that exhibits the properties that we understand it to have. We need some sort of frame of reference, after all, if we are to do anything other than simply flail. If that frame of reference is to be proven wrong, that's wonderful, but until that's the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the universe's "primitives" would be perceived in any truly, truly different way such that the species' interpretation would cause humans to rethink our own understanding of the universe's "primitives" from the ground up.
After all, conceiving a difference between hydrogen and helium requires being able to tell the difference between one and two (electrons, as well as separate elements themselves). And considering we have every reason to believe that those make up the majority of the mass in the universe, any "intelligent" life (there's that human-centric term again) can be expected to somehow conceptualize that difference, and thus, do something like counting, and thus, approach the same primitives of mathematics that we do. The approach might be different, but what they're approaching -- the very fabric of reality, hopefully as objectively as possible -- must be assumed to be the same (again, that is, until we're given compelling evidence to believe otherwise).
That said, I've never studied the philosophy of mathematics, so I could be talking out of my ass here, this is just the reasoning of a layman after all. If anyone reads this and goes "no you're way off base," I'd love to hear it!
But isn't the whole point to to do our best to bypass human-centric systems of understanding, and arrive at the "core truth" of the matter? Whether that's possible is another matter, but even if it's not possible, surely it's something that can be theoretically approached, and I would wager is precisely what PG means by "one mathematics."
> And then there’s the possibility that our mathematics and overall perception of reality is shaped by our biology in far deeper ways than we imagine and currently understand.
Yes, but also no. Consider some first principles:
-We have every reason to believe that any and all life would not live forever, or if the life in question is "intelligent" (a nebulous/human-centric term, for sure) would at the very least conceive of other things not lasting forever (such as stars, or even the universe itself [or, if you want to be really generous, "this current iteration of the universe"]). -Therefore we can reasonably assume that all "intelligent" life in the universe would understand the concept of scarcity (either via finite lifespans/time, food/energy sources, both, or something else), non-infinity. I'd go so far as to say that any life form that doesn't understand its own mortality or other such limits should be not be considered "intelligent," at least for the reasons of this discussion. -Therefore we can reasonably assume that said intelligent life would somehow conceptualize a binary state (you're either alive or you're not, you either have access to an energy source or you don't, etc), and consequently would somehow or another understand the concept of "zero," "nothing," etc, as well as its opposite, "something." And from there, would necessarily discern the differences between two states of "somethings" (the state of "something" that is "one" is different than the state of "something" that is "two").
I know I'm using a lot of loaded terms here -- "reasonably," "assume," "discerning" -- but just like we look for life by looking for the markers of life that we know were necessary for Earth (carbon, water, etc), we can look for intelligence that exhibits the properties that we understand it to have. We need some sort of frame of reference, after all, if we are to do anything other than simply flail. If that frame of reference is to be proven wrong, that's wonderful, but until that's the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the universe's "primitives" would be perceived in any truly, truly different way such that the species' interpretation would cause humans to rethink our own understanding of the universe's "primitives" from the ground up.
After all, conceiving a difference between hydrogen and helium requires being able to tell the difference between one and two (electrons, as well as separate elements themselves). And considering we have every reason to believe that those make up the majority of the mass in the universe, any "intelligent" life (there's that human-centric term again) can be expected to somehow conceptualize that difference, and thus, do something like counting, and thus, approach the same primitives of mathematics that we do. The approach might be different, but what they're approaching -- the very fabric of reality, hopefully as objectively as possible -- must be assumed to be the same (again, that is, until we're given compelling evidence to believe otherwise).
That said, I've never studied the philosophy of mathematics, so I could be talking out of my ass here, this is just the reasoning of a layman after all. If anyone reads this and goes "no you're way off base," I'd love to hear it!
[deleted]
Yeah, lots of strong baseless assumptions in the first paragraph made me stop reading.
Fully agreed.
These beliefs you quoted from the article, which unfortunately most people don't even recognize as beliefs, form the basis of the dominant religion of the western world (scientism).
The worrying thing is that the majority of people who believe in this religion don't even realize they are believers.
These beliefs you quoted from the article, which unfortunately most people don't even recognize as beliefs, form the basis of the dominant religion of the western world (scientism).
The worrying thing is that the majority of people who believe in this religion don't even realize they are believers.
The thing that differentiates science from religion is repeatability. With religion everyone has their own opinion, people out of contact with each other come up with radically different religious beliefs and there is no way to bridge between those beliefs. If we forgot everything we know about religion, in a thousand years we might rediscover religion again but they'd be entirely different religions from what we have now.
With science it doesn't matter who does a given experiment, anyone else doing the same experiment will get the same results. There's no scope for disagreement about verifiable scientific facts. Just do the experiment and find out. If we forgot everything we know about science, in a thousand years if we rediscovered science, very quickly we'd rediscover all the exact same facts about the world again.
With science it doesn't matter who does a given experiment, anyone else doing the same experiment will get the same results. There's no scope for disagreement about verifiable scientific facts. Just do the experiment and find out. If we forgot everything we know about science, in a thousand years if we rediscovered science, very quickly we'd rediscover all the exact same facts about the world again.
Science doesn't have "facts" or "truths". It is based on falsifiability: for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
This is the key difference from religion, which has no such "falsifiability" equivalent.
The closest thing to "beliefs" is probably an individual following which of several competing theories is most likely correct -- but there's always the underlying basis that any of them might have evidence showing they're incorrect at any time, and one's view should adjust as a result.
Often this comes in the form of deferring to other people or a consensus view, which could be construed as "faith" but is different: If you asked me how the universe exists, I'd say the big bang theory is the best answer we have, but I don't understand enough about the underlying science to explain why nor can my brain comprehend the reality of it. I have no loyalty or allegiance to this view, though; I could be swayed to another theory if the big bang is ever proven false or if a better theory arises.
Further reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scie...
This is the key difference from religion, which has no such "falsifiability" equivalent.
The closest thing to "beliefs" is probably an individual following which of several competing theories is most likely correct -- but there's always the underlying basis that any of them might have evidence showing they're incorrect at any time, and one's view should adjust as a result.
Often this comes in the form of deferring to other people or a consensus view, which could be construed as "faith" but is different: If you asked me how the universe exists, I'd say the big bang theory is the best answer we have, but I don't understand enough about the underlying science to explain why nor can my brain comprehend the reality of it. I have no loyalty or allegiance to this view, though; I could be swayed to another theory if the big bang is ever proven false or if a better theory arises.
Further reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scie...
If I am not mistaken, this is similar to what Feyerabend seemed to be on about.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philoso...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philoso...
In the late 1600s, Christian Huygens proposed that aliens would share our geometry (circles, spheres, etc) and even our rough musical ratios (like an octave is a doubling of frequency and a fifth is 3:2)
Music is an interesting one. There's a lot of subjectivity in the understanding of music, but there are some very basic principles that seem near-universal in human cultures at least. Octave equivalence, the consonance of small-number frequency ratios.
Presumably aliens wouldn't experience music the same way we do, especially if they don't have ears or physical bodies. But music itself might be interesting to them even if they don't really "get" it, due to the mathematical relationships involved. And they might have something analogous that we can't fully understand.
On the other hand it's also at least possible that aliens would understand our music perfectly well, and find it boring or atrociously bad due to our obliviousness to phase relationships, or the inherent out-of-tuneness of modern music, or how the tempo of the music is untethered from its pitch, or because our range of human hearing misses out on all the good stuff that happens above 15-20khz.
Presumably aliens wouldn't experience music the same way we do, especially if they don't have ears or physical bodies. But music itself might be interesting to them even if they don't really "get" it, due to the mathematical relationships involved. And they might have something analogous that we can't fully understand.
On the other hand it's also at least possible that aliens would understand our music perfectly well, and find it boring or atrociously bad due to our obliviousness to phase relationships, or the inherent out-of-tuneness of modern music, or how the tempo of the music is untethered from its pitch, or because our range of human hearing misses out on all the good stuff that happens above 15-20khz.
It's also worth thinking about the exact opposite of this, what truths are we least likely to share with aliens?
The beauty and importance of art and culture comes to mind, and so does humor and jokes. Try explaining, in scientific terms, what makes a joke funny, and the task turns out to be far harder than expected.
The beauty and importance of art and culture comes to mind, and so does humor and jokes. Try explaining, in scientific terms, what makes a joke funny, and the task turns out to be far harder than expected.
In addition to alien truth there are probably also alien games: ones so simple for their level of depth and enjoyment that you would expect them to be independently discovered. For example, Hex [1] is reasonably deep and has been invented at least twice. Go, with something like the Tromp-Taylor rules [2] might be as well? Probably not Chess, though!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)
[2] https://senseis.xmp.net/?TrompTaylorRules
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)
[2] https://senseis.xmp.net/?TrompTaylorRules
What happens upon contact with aliens? I believe that to be an important question, and one look at the warfaring, fearful history of humankind makes it clear, as best said from the most reprehensible book on philosophy I have ever read:
"477. "If intelligent entities from other parts of the universe exist at similar or superior technological levels to ours, would they draw the same or at least similar philosophical conclusions to us?" That is a very good question. And my answer is this. They better f#%*ing do if they want to have any hope of withstanding our relentless, merciless onslaught."
"477. "If intelligent entities from other parts of the universe exist at similar or superior technological levels to ours, would they draw the same or at least similar philosophical conclusions to us?" That is a very good question. And my answer is this. They better f#%*ing do if they want to have any hope of withstanding our relentless, merciless onslaught."
[deleted]
These threads seem to invite lots of comments of the form "[I|someone I know of|both] [am|is|are] smarter than PG for xyz reasons". These can be interesting to read if you want to get into the nitty gritty.
But they don't often seem to engage with the overall point. In this case, I think that point is that there are probably local truths and universal truths, and wouldn't it be neat to focus on the universal ones, or figure out which ones are only locally true, and why? But who knows, that's just my interpretation.
But they don't often seem to engage with the overall point. In this case, I think that point is that there are probably local truths and universal truths, and wouldn't it be neat to focus on the universal ones, or figure out which ones are only locally true, and why? But who knows, that's just my interpretation.
Agreed. One of pg’s examples was “If there are aliens, they’d probably discover that a stool with three legs is the most stable.” I’m surprised he didn’t include it in this essay.
> a stool with three legs is the most stable
I don’t think stable is the right word. A stool with three legs is less wobbly on an uneven surface.
A high stool with three legs is less stable to horizontal forces (forces towards the gap between legs).
I would say a tall stool with four legs is more stable (assuming the outer diameter of the footprint of the feet remains the same.)
It is the same reason three-wheeled cars are less stable than four wheeled cars.
If you want a stable seat on an uneven surface, you use a one legged stool (your legs make the other two adjustable legs).
Finally, the concept of a stool depends on two-legs and various other human specific environmental details. Aliens might not understand our stool analysis at all.
I don’t think stable is the right word. A stool with three legs is less wobbly on an uneven surface.
A high stool with three legs is less stable to horizontal forces (forces towards the gap between legs).
I would say a tall stool with four legs is more stable (assuming the outer diameter of the footprint of the feet remains the same.)
It is the same reason three-wheeled cars are less stable than four wheeled cars.
If you want a stable seat on an uneven surface, you use a one legged stool (your legs make the other two adjustable legs).
Finally, the concept of a stool depends on two-legs and various other human specific environmental details. Aliens might not understand our stool analysis at all.
What was the reason a three legged stool is the best? Doesn't that depend on your environment? E.g. the amount of gravity, perhaps wind, or the quality of materials available to construct a stool?
Three points make a plane, a fourth point is redundant. Three equidistant stool legs are stable on any surface regardless of flatness, but four equidistant stool legs need to be aligned correctly with a non-flat surface to be stable.
If you live on a world where your wood is more like laffy taffy or whatever, maybe the stool buckles when it only has three legs.
If you're an oompa loompa living in Willie Wonka's world where there's no such thing as rigid construction and everything is candy, the ability to have any level of technological civilization (including stool building) is dubious.
Paul is well out of his depth here. We can all sit around pondering the universe - that's easy.
Answering these questions is significantly harder - impossible given today's science.
This essay reads like the ramblings of a man who's smoked too much weed.
Paul should stick to tech start ups - if you want serious insight around science, space and the universe hit up people like Richard Feynman...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
Answering these questions is significantly harder - impossible given today's science.
This essay reads like the ramblings of a man who's smoked too much weed.
Paul should stick to tech start ups - if you want serious insight around science, space and the universe hit up people like Richard Feynman...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
>For example, I think we'd share the principle that a controlled experiment testing some hypothesis entitles us to have proportionally increased belief in it.
This isn't even a shared principle among humans. How many experiments does it take for you to have 50% belief in a hypothesis?. What is the number of experiments? It's literally impossible to answer. It's not even clear what "belief" is or what 50% means.
This ambiguity of the word isn't even the main problem. If I run the same experiment with perfect observational tools 10 billion times and it verifies my hypothesis. Does that raise my belief further? What if on the 10 billionth and first time the test shows a negative result? That literally invalidates the hypothesis. Keep in mind we are assuming my observational tools are perfect. Does this make my belief shoot down to zero?
If this possibility of a negative result remains true after any number of tests then what does it say about belief? Why should I believe anything if a single negative experiment can invalidate 10 billion positive experiments (assuming perfect observational tools of course)?
Let me bring a more concrete example. I hypothesize all zebras have stripes. I observe zebras 10 billion times. They all confirm my hypothesis. Then on the 10 billionth and first time I see a zebra with spots. My hypothesis is wrong. This can happen any time.
Anyway to bring it back to his point. Don't assume shared axiomatic truths. PG already assumed that it's shared among humans. He's wrong. The nature of science and the scientific method is not universally shared or even fully understood among humans. He's likely also wrong about aliens as he is about humans.
This isn't even a shared principle among humans. How many experiments does it take for you to have 50% belief in a hypothesis?. What is the number of experiments? It's literally impossible to answer. It's not even clear what "belief" is or what 50% means.
This ambiguity of the word isn't even the main problem. If I run the same experiment with perfect observational tools 10 billion times and it verifies my hypothesis. Does that raise my belief further? What if on the 10 billionth and first time the test shows a negative result? That literally invalidates the hypothesis. Keep in mind we are assuming my observational tools are perfect. Does this make my belief shoot down to zero?
If this possibility of a negative result remains true after any number of tests then what does it say about belief? Why should I believe anything if a single negative experiment can invalidate 10 billion positive experiments (assuming perfect observational tools of course)?
Let me bring a more concrete example. I hypothesize all zebras have stripes. I observe zebras 10 billion times. They all confirm my hypothesis. Then on the 10 billionth and first time I see a zebra with spots. My hypothesis is wrong. This can happen any time.
Anyway to bring it back to his point. Don't assume shared axiomatic truths. PG already assumed that it's shared among humans. He's wrong. The nature of science and the scientific method is not universally shared or even fully understood among humans. He's likely also wrong about aliens as he is about humans.
> I hypothesize all zebras have stripes. I observe zebras 10 billion times. They all confirm my hypothesis. Then on the 10 billionth and first time I see a zebra with spots. My hypothesis is wrong. This can happen any time.
Even if the original belief turns out to be wrong, you only have to slightly weaken it and it will remain true: "the vast majority of zebras have stripes". Even if you discover a new continent full of hordes of uniformly-colored zebras, the true hypothesis becomes "the vast majority of zebras in my original continent are striped".
Essentially every observation brings proof for a whole family of hypotheses. We normally only talk about the strongest of these hypotheses, but that doesn't meant that a negative example rules out the entire family.
For example, even if we didn't find a deductive proof the Fermat's last theorem was wrong even after all of the empirical proof that it probably wasn't, a weaker version would have still remained true - the one validated by that empirical proof.
Even if the original belief turns out to be wrong, you only have to slightly weaken it and it will remain true: "the vast majority of zebras have stripes". Even if you discover a new continent full of hordes of uniformly-colored zebras, the true hypothesis becomes "the vast majority of zebras in my original continent are striped".
Essentially every observation brings proof for a whole family of hypotheses. We normally only talk about the strongest of these hypotheses, but that doesn't meant that a negative example rules out the entire family.
For example, even if we didn't find a deductive proof the Fermat's last theorem was wrong even after all of the empirical proof that it probably wasn't, a weaker version would have still remained true - the one validated by that empirical proof.
>Even if the original belief turns out to be wrong, you only have to slightly weaken it and it will remain true: "the vast majority of zebras have stripes". Even if you discover a new continent full of hordes of uniformly-colored zebras, the true hypothesis becomes "the vast majority of zebras in my original continent are striped".
The hypothesis does not remain true. It was never proven to be true and the new hypothesis is still not proven to be true. Science cannot prove anything to be true. I can find a cave full of of spotted zebras, and you have to further weaken your hypothesis of continents, I can then find that the stripes were actually microscopic spots and my perfect observation tool, though never wrong has limited resolution. Ad infinitum. Nobody ever considers your made up philosophy because it's changing the rules of the game. It's making a statement then adjusting your statement once it's proven wrong... people look down on that kind of thing.
What I'm writing here isn't something I pulled out of my ass. It's well known that in science, the scientific method, and reality itself, nothing can be proven. Proof is the domain of math and logic, not science. In science, things can only be falsified. To quote Einstein:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Einstein obviously isn't saying stuff like a single experiment causes me to adjust my hypothesis and divide split it into two different ones because it's kind of inconsistent.
There are people who truly understand science, but most of the population doesn't (including PG). I think what's going on with you is you're in the later camp, you've long held the incorrect belief that science can prove things and this long held ideology is coming into contact with the actual logic of the situation and your adjusting your belief to maintain a biased ideology.
Do you look up to PG? Bias can be corrected when an authority confirms the opposite. I quoted Einstein here. One of the ultimate authorities on science, a person who overturned the hypothesis about Newtonian physics being a model for motion. A single experiment proved it wrong and now Newtonian physics is simply an approximation that is ultimately wrong. Hopefully that will clear things up, if not... then you must be an Alien far more strange then what PG is describing.
The hypothesis does not remain true. It was never proven to be true and the new hypothesis is still not proven to be true. Science cannot prove anything to be true. I can find a cave full of of spotted zebras, and you have to further weaken your hypothesis of continents, I can then find that the stripes were actually microscopic spots and my perfect observation tool, though never wrong has limited resolution. Ad infinitum. Nobody ever considers your made up philosophy because it's changing the rules of the game. It's making a statement then adjusting your statement once it's proven wrong... people look down on that kind of thing.
What I'm writing here isn't something I pulled out of my ass. It's well known that in science, the scientific method, and reality itself, nothing can be proven. Proof is the domain of math and logic, not science. In science, things can only be falsified. To quote Einstein:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Einstein obviously isn't saying stuff like a single experiment causes me to adjust my hypothesis and divide split it into two different ones because it's kind of inconsistent.
There are people who truly understand science, but most of the population doesn't (including PG). I think what's going on with you is you're in the later camp, you've long held the incorrect belief that science can prove things and this long held ideology is coming into contact with the actual logic of the situation and your adjusting your belief to maintain a biased ideology.
Do you look up to PG? Bias can be corrected when an authority confirms the opposite. I quoted Einstein here. One of the ultimate authorities on science, a person who overturned the hypothesis about Newtonian physics being a model for motion. A single experiment proved it wrong and now Newtonian physics is simply an approximation that is ultimately wrong. Hopefully that will clear things up, if not... then you must be an Alien far more strange then what PG is describing.
Please don't act condescending. The problem of induction is well-known, and is closely related to what you are discussing here. I agree that science can't literally prove any hypothesis is true in the same sense that mathematics/logic can; but we also can't jump from here to considering inductive reasoning an entirely useless tool in the search for truth.
That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false.
Also, this is not unique to science. The same phenomenon can happen in mathematics or logic for theorems that have been neither proven nor disproven yet. We can perform numerical experiments to test a numerical theorem, and gain some amount of confidence in that theorem even if we haven't proven it to be true. We can often establish lower or upper bounds in the course of this experimentation, where we find that the theorem is True at least for some limited subset of all numbers - and this remains True and useful even if it later turns out that there exist counter-examples.
This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end.
That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false.
Also, this is not unique to science. The same phenomenon can happen in mathematics or logic for theorems that have been neither proven nor disproven yet. We can perform numerical experiments to test a numerical theorem, and gain some amount of confidence in that theorem even if we haven't proven it to be true. We can often establish lower or upper bounds in the course of this experimentation, where we find that the theorem is True at least for some limited subset of all numbers - and this remains True and useful even if it later turns out that there exist counter-examples.
This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end.
>Please don't act condescending.
Please don't accuse me of acting condescending. It's very offensive and hurts my feelings when I'm accused of something I'm not doing.
I am criticizing you, but I am not being condescending. There is a huge difference.
Perhaps the alien thing was bad. I apologize for that. The intent was a joke and was not condescension.
>That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false.
Yes but this was not part of the discussion. We're talking about science as a principle. Not what we have learned from the process of science.
>This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end.
Important or not, we diverged from the point. Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens is the point. My point is, PG's view isn't even shared with humans, why should he assume it's going to be shared with aliens?
You're talking about the importance of science. The value of science. That's off topic.
Please don't accuse me of acting condescending. It's very offensive and hurts my feelings when I'm accused of something I'm not doing.
I am criticizing you, but I am not being condescending. There is a huge difference.
Perhaps the alien thing was bad. I apologize for that. The intent was a joke and was not condescension.
>That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false.
Yes but this was not part of the discussion. We're talking about science as a principle. Not what we have learned from the process of science.
>This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end.
Important or not, we diverged from the point. Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens is the point. My point is, PG's view isn't even shared with humans, why should he assume it's going to be shared with aliens?
You're talking about the importance of science. The value of science. That's off topic.
> Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens is the point. My point is, PG's view isn't even shared with humans, why should he assume it's going to be shared with aliens?
What we're discussing is "the principle that a controlled experiment testing some hypothesis entitles us to have proportionally increased belief in it". Anyone that rejects this principle doesn't know if the sun will rise up tomorrow, is terrified that they may fall through the floor at any moment, or worse, drift off into the enormity of space.
What PG was essentially talking about was that all humans agree on the value of inductive reasoning ("experience") *, despite the philosophical problem of induction. This is far older than any notion of science, and is universal among not just humans, but also life forms on Earth in general (at least plants, fungi, and animals). I honestly very much doubt that it is even possible to function in the world, let alone to build interplanetary communication, if you reject inductive reasoning.
The fact that we can't reconcile inductive and deductive reasoning is a limitation of our philosophical/logical/mathematical systems, not some ultimate truth that invalidates the above principle.
Quite off-topic, but I will also note that I don't really like PG in general, and think much of his argumentation style is unpleasant and often makes undue assumptions. I just happen to strongly agree with (my interpretation of) this particular point.
* admittedly, he did go a step further by mentioning "controlled experiments", which induction doesn't rely on; but I don't think that really modifies the statement. As a toddler, when you place a cube on the ground, look away, and then look back, you're performing a controlled experiment to check if objects have permanence.
What we're discussing is "the principle that a controlled experiment testing some hypothesis entitles us to have proportionally increased belief in it". Anyone that rejects this principle doesn't know if the sun will rise up tomorrow, is terrified that they may fall through the floor at any moment, or worse, drift off into the enormity of space.
What PG was essentially talking about was that all humans agree on the value of inductive reasoning ("experience") *, despite the philosophical problem of induction. This is far older than any notion of science, and is universal among not just humans, but also life forms on Earth in general (at least plants, fungi, and animals). I honestly very much doubt that it is even possible to function in the world, let alone to build interplanetary communication, if you reject inductive reasoning.
The fact that we can't reconcile inductive and deductive reasoning is a limitation of our philosophical/logical/mathematical systems, not some ultimate truth that invalidates the above principle.
Quite off-topic, but I will also note that I don't really like PG in general, and think much of his argumentation style is unpleasant and often makes undue assumptions. I just happen to strongly agree with (my interpretation of) this particular point.
* admittedly, he did go a step further by mentioning "controlled experiments", which induction doesn't rely on; but I don't think that really modifies the statement. As a toddler, when you place a cube on the ground, look away, and then look back, you're performing a controlled experiment to check if objects have permanence.
>The fact that we can't reconcile inductive and deductive reasoning is a limitation of our philosophical/logical/mathematical systems, not some ultimate truth that invalidates the above principle.
It's not reconciling those two systems. It's reconciling all of logic (induction and deduction) and reality itself. Logic, by logic itself is inapplicable to reality. We live in a universe of unknown domains and imprecise/inconsistent measurements. At any point in time we can make an observation that contradicts a previous observation. This makes proof impossible. While proof is impossible because of the possibility of a contradictory observation, falsification is very possible. The goal of science is falsification, not proof.
This is the logical conclusion of science and therefore reality. Logic, deduction and induction and proof are mostly the domain of mathematics or little axiomatic games we play where we artificially limit the domain. It's a Very very different domain from the one science operates in.
Most of humanity actually agrees deduction and induction are inapplicable to reality. Hence why science is, in the end, the most rigorous form of determining truth (despite the fact that it actually can't) instead of logic. This is in fact the conclusion reached ABOUT reality when we apply logic to it; that logic itself is inapplicable to reality as we know it.
When we check if a cube on the ground 100 times and see that it exists but we can't know what the next 10 billion observations will yield. Perhaps the 100 observations were biased, and the 10 billion subsequent observations yield that cube was a reflection, the toddler was mistaken and the situation did not exist long enough for the toddler to observe the cube past 100 observations.
> Anyone that rejects this principle doesn't know if the sun will rise up tomorrow, is terrified that they may fall through the floor at any moment, or worse, drift off into the enormity of space.
This is my issue with PG. If you look at science rigorously... we actually don't assume this is true. Science cannot verify whether the sun will rise tomorrow or whether or not we will or will not fall through the floor. That is science in a nut shell. PG is saying something WRONG about science and that Aliens will share a belief with us about it.
As for our day to day experiences, you're right. We all believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but this isn't science. This is simply bias, that all humans are born with. We ASSUME the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is no form of reasoning (scientific, deductive or inductive) that can lead us to that conclusion. PG was NOT talking about this. He was talking about Science and controlled experiments. Not shared assumptions about reality.
If PG said, "We assume that Aliens, like us, assume that when we're not looking the cube still exists even though we only observed it a couple of times." then I can probably get behind that, but it is an entirely different statement.
It's not reconciling those two systems. It's reconciling all of logic (induction and deduction) and reality itself. Logic, by logic itself is inapplicable to reality. We live in a universe of unknown domains and imprecise/inconsistent measurements. At any point in time we can make an observation that contradicts a previous observation. This makes proof impossible. While proof is impossible because of the possibility of a contradictory observation, falsification is very possible. The goal of science is falsification, not proof.
This is the logical conclusion of science and therefore reality. Logic, deduction and induction and proof are mostly the domain of mathematics or little axiomatic games we play where we artificially limit the domain. It's a Very very different domain from the one science operates in.
Most of humanity actually agrees deduction and induction are inapplicable to reality. Hence why science is, in the end, the most rigorous form of determining truth (despite the fact that it actually can't) instead of logic. This is in fact the conclusion reached ABOUT reality when we apply logic to it; that logic itself is inapplicable to reality as we know it.
When we check if a cube on the ground 100 times and see that it exists but we can't know what the next 10 billion observations will yield. Perhaps the 100 observations were biased, and the 10 billion subsequent observations yield that cube was a reflection, the toddler was mistaken and the situation did not exist long enough for the toddler to observe the cube past 100 observations.
> Anyone that rejects this principle doesn't know if the sun will rise up tomorrow, is terrified that they may fall through the floor at any moment, or worse, drift off into the enormity of space.
This is my issue with PG. If you look at science rigorously... we actually don't assume this is true. Science cannot verify whether the sun will rise tomorrow or whether or not we will or will not fall through the floor. That is science in a nut shell. PG is saying something WRONG about science and that Aliens will share a belief with us about it.
As for our day to day experiences, you're right. We all believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but this isn't science. This is simply bias, that all humans are born with. We ASSUME the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is no form of reasoning (scientific, deductive or inductive) that can lead us to that conclusion. PG was NOT talking about this. He was talking about Science and controlled experiments. Not shared assumptions about reality.
If PG said, "We assume that Aliens, like us, assume that when we're not looking the cube still exists even though we only observed it a couple of times." then I can probably get behind that, but it is an entirely different statement.
> Yes
So then you agree that "experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis"
> Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens
Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to.
So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
So then you agree that "experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis"
> Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens
Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to.
So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
no. Don't agree. Experimentation can't prove anything. It also doesn't strengthen anything. Proof is not a strengthening of something. If you prove something it means it's true.
>Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. >So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
Never agreed. You misinterpreted. I agreed to this: "we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments". You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something. That's it.
>Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. >So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
Never agreed. You misinterpreted. I agreed to this: "we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments". You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something. That's it.
> You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something
Ok great, so then you agree that this is a principle that would be shared, which is the point.
Ok great, so then you agree that this is a principle that would be shared, which is the point.
Not great. Because I disagree with you. You learned something. But established nothing. You are no closer to proving your hypothesis.
You said this "You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something"
So then yes, that is an agreement that at least to that statement.
> But established nothing.
Well it established that at least you agree with that statement.
> Because I disagree with you.
actually you said this "I agreed to this:"
This is you saying that you agreed with the statement that followed that. So yes, you used the word agree.
So then yes, that is an agreement that at least to that statement.
> But established nothing.
Well it established that at least you agree with that statement.
> Because I disagree with you.
actually you said this "I agreed to this:"
This is you saying that you agreed with the statement that followed that. So yes, you used the word agree.
You're being pedantic. Obviously I agree with you something was learned. But I disagree with you that anything was proven or established by what was learned.
> I agree with you something was learned
Ok, you agree with this then.
Yes, that is my point. This is what you agreed with.
Ok, you agree with this then.
Yes, that is my point. This is what you agreed with.
> This isn't even a shared principle among humans. How many experiments does it take for you to have 50% belief in a hypothesis?. What is the number of experiments? It's literally impossible to answer. It's not even clear what "belief" is or what 50% means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...
A bit of a complicated read. Not sure what you're trying to say here and I don't even completely understand it. But anything that gets into bayesians and frequentists ends in a fundamental divide in humanity. Humans don't agree on which interpretation is correct. Which is the point of everything I wrote.
So why would aliens hold this "principle" the same if humans don't even agree on it? PG is wrong. His own principles upended not even by aliens, but by humanity, thus how accurate can his assumptions about universal principles even be? No that accurate imho.
So why would aliens hold this "principle" the same if humans don't even agree on it? PG is wrong. His own principles upended not even by aliens, but by humanity, thus how accurate can his assumptions about universal principles even be? No that accurate imho.
> But anything that gets into bayesians and frequentists ends in a fundamental divide in humanity. Humans don't agree on which interpretation is correct.
There is no divide, there is the illusion of divide because we didn't have a rigourous formal model of how to build reliable knowledge and everyone focused on different but relevant aspects.
Bayesian reasoning is the correct way if you have justifiable priors, but we didn't have a way to calculate the correct prior.
Solomonoff showed us how with his theory: Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of parsimony, and this is how to select priors in a formal, rigourous way.
Solomonoff induction is to knowledge what Turing machines or the lambda calculus are to computation. Sure, aliens might not discover Turing machines exactly, or the lambda calculus exactly, but whatever they do build that's capable of universal computation, we already know it must be isomorphic to a Turing machine, because all constructions capable of computation must be by necessity.
The frequentist/Bayesian divide is a separate issue about how to interpret statistical data in useful ways, not specifically about how we know what we know and what confidence we should have in our knowledge, which is what you were asking about.
There is no divide, there is the illusion of divide because we didn't have a rigourous formal model of how to build reliable knowledge and everyone focused on different but relevant aspects.
Bayesian reasoning is the correct way if you have justifiable priors, but we didn't have a way to calculate the correct prior.
Solomonoff showed us how with his theory: Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of parsimony, and this is how to select priors in a formal, rigourous way.
Solomonoff induction is to knowledge what Turing machines or the lambda calculus are to computation. Sure, aliens might not discover Turing machines exactly, or the lambda calculus exactly, but whatever they do build that's capable of universal computation, we already know it must be isomorphic to a Turing machine, because all constructions capable of computation must be by necessity.
The frequentist/Bayesian divide is a separate issue about how to interpret statistical data in useful ways, not specifically about how we know what we know and what confidence we should have in our knowledge, which is what you were asking about.
Interesting. Do you know of any popular science articles or books that can describe what you're talking about? Academic papers are fine too, just harder to parse.
Hard to find simple articles on such an esoteric topic as algorithmic probability, which cuts across subjects like probability, information theory and computation. This one seems to hit all the notes but who knows if it's as accessible as it's aiming to be:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kyc5dFDzBg4WccrbK/an-intuiti...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kyc5dFDzBg4WccrbK/an-intuiti...
Wow, I didn't think you would find one. I thought I'd be digging through some esoteric academic paper. Thanks!
> We'd probably share Occam's razor.
I already disagree here. Simplicity is a heuristic in the brain. Like all heuristics it helps you solve some problems easier, but behind the word stands the entire life experience of someone, and whatever is "simpler" depends on way too many human things in his life. "Simple" is something human. So is Occam's razor.
I already disagree here. Simplicity is a heuristic in the brain. Like all heuristics it helps you solve some problems easier, but behind the word stands the entire life experience of someone, and whatever is "simpler" depends on way too many human things in his life. "Simple" is something human. So is Occam's razor.
It's not we exactly "simplicity". If you have two explanations arriving at identical results, take the one with less assumptions.
It's helpful to look at it the other way around. Thomas Aquinas worded his version of it:
> it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many.
There's a subtle difference, and that's probably why we see it called the parsimony principle instead of the simplicity principle. The point being not to have nonessential crap hanging off your theory -- provided you've established that it's genuinely nonessential.
It's helpful to look at it the other way around. Thomas Aquinas worded his version of it:
> it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many.
There's a subtle difference, and that's probably why we see it called the parsimony principle instead of the simplicity principle. The point being not to have nonessential crap hanging off your theory -- provided you've established that it's genuinely nonessential.
In the ancient Greece there was a tradition of studying math. To the outsiders it appeared as if a bunch of dudes in white robes studied triangles, but the inner circle studied the absolute truths that happened to be represented well by geometry. The Pythagora's triangle wasn't just a shallow numeric relationship to them, they saw the inner truth behind it.
> What should we call the search for alien truth? The obvious choice is "philosophy."
Minor nitpick, but the subfield of Epistemology (or Alien Epistemology) might be a better term. Literally the study of knowledge, or how we know what we know and what is true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
But trying to look at it from an alien (or AI) point of view is a really interesting thought experiment. What are universal truths in the literal sense of the word "universal"? And what are merely helio-centric cultural trends masquerading as universal truths.
I wonder if that's ever been done before. There's a little bit of discussion of it online, but not much it seems:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22alien%20epistemology
Minor nitpick, but the subfield of Epistemology (or Alien Epistemology) might be a better term. Literally the study of knowledge, or how we know what we know and what is true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
But trying to look at it from an alien (or AI) point of view is a really interesting thought experiment. What are universal truths in the literal sense of the word "universal"? And what are merely helio-centric cultural trends masquerading as universal truths.
I wonder if that's ever been done before. There's a little bit of discussion of it online, but not much it seems:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22alien%20epistemology
It also occurs to me to wonder if AGI will ever invent its own version of epistemology, wondering how it knows what it knows. Or will minds based fundamentally on binary logic, rather than the human mind's fuzzy logic, even need such a field?
I think alien truth about alien truth would be epistemology. The number of protons in helium might be an alien truth but it isn't really epistemology, it's just a fact. Whereas the scientific method itself would be a system of epistemology.
One of the bitter lessons I've learned is that when I think of something, I should always (always!) do a couple searches to see if anyone else has thought of it, before I commit to writing down my thoughts as novel or authoritative.
Someone (typically at Bell Labs in like 1973) has nearly always already had my thought, but then explored it in much richer, finer detail than I have. It's disappointing to learn I'm not an unmatched genius, but much more illuminating to read and think about how others have considered similar issues.
I don't fault Paul for not doing this, it happens to everyone, and I imagine he's quite busy. I do fault all the people who read this draft and didn't do this very easy exercise for him. I think it reflects a undue deference towards frankly uninformed and pretty basic observations.
Someone (typically at Bell Labs in like 1973) has nearly always already had my thought, but then explored it in much richer, finer detail than I have. It's disappointing to learn I'm not an unmatched genius, but much more illuminating to read and think about how others have considered similar issues.
I don't fault Paul for not doing this, it happens to everyone, and I imagine he's quite busy. I do fault all the people who read this draft and didn't do this very easy exercise for him. I think it reflects a undue deference towards frankly uninformed and pretty basic observations.
[deleted]
>For example, I think we'd share the principle that a controlled experiment testing some hypothesis entitles us to have proportionally increased belief in it.
vs
>I wouldn't want to bet that all intelligent beings would understand the concept of justice
It would be unjust if a technologically advanced society murdered all its scientists for heresy during a religious coup, but Paul is unwilling to bet that all alien societies understand justice. Why the belief in science then? Our own planet has theocracies and a President of the supposed #1 country has updated scientific hurricane reports with a sharpie.
Plenty of science fiction authors have speculated meeting theocratic aliens. Peter Hamilton's Salvation comes to mind (you get where that series is going from the title).
vs
>I wouldn't want to bet that all intelligent beings would understand the concept of justice
It would be unjust if a technologically advanced society murdered all its scientists for heresy during a religious coup, but Paul is unwilling to bet that all alien societies understand justice. Why the belief in science then? Our own planet has theocracies and a President of the supposed #1 country has updated scientific hurricane reports with a sharpie.
Plenty of science fiction authors have speculated meeting theocratic aliens. Peter Hamilton's Salvation comes to mind (you get where that series is going from the title).
Looks like PG was inspired by reading Project Hail Mary, and decided to be philosophical about it :)
I have long suspected that the aliens will recognize Go (the game), but (obviously) not Chess (the other game).
I suspect they will even recognize Go's 19x19 board (b/c it has properties other board sizes would not have).
But would they recognize 12 tones scales?
I suspect they will even recognize Go's 19x19 board (b/c it has properties other board sizes would not have).
But would they recognize 12 tones scales?
> But would they recognize 12 tones scales?
It's possible that they might, but if they have any kind of musical discernment they might find it objectionable unless they're as lazy as we are.
12-tone equal temperament works more-or-less because it gives good-enough approximations of almost all the small-number ratios that a musician making relatively straightforward music would care about. However, thirds and sixths are pretty out-of-tune and frequency ratios with sevens in them like 7:6 and 7:4 don't have any reasonable approximation.
On the other hand, 41-tone equal temperament is a much better system in just about any way you might care about, except that it makes building physical instruments more complicated because there's more notes to worry about. 53 is also really good, but that's even more notes.
And then there's pure just intonation, which is a great option if you don't really care about being able to transpose freely to/from any key, but you want each note pitch to be dead-on exact.
In other words, 12-TET is a kind of local optimum that we're stuck in for historical reasons and because the barriers to change are high. You might as well ask if an alien civilization would recognize the concept of daylight-savings-time, or the QWERTY keyboard, or the electoral college.
It's possible that they might, but if they have any kind of musical discernment they might find it objectionable unless they're as lazy as we are.
12-tone equal temperament works more-or-less because it gives good-enough approximations of almost all the small-number ratios that a musician making relatively straightforward music would care about. However, thirds and sixths are pretty out-of-tune and frequency ratios with sevens in them like 7:6 and 7:4 don't have any reasonable approximation.
On the other hand, 41-tone equal temperament is a much better system in just about any way you might care about, except that it makes building physical instruments more complicated because there's more notes to worry about. 53 is also really good, but that's even more notes.
And then there's pure just intonation, which is a great option if you don't really care about being able to transpose freely to/from any key, but you want each note pitch to be dead-on exact.
In other words, 12-TET is a kind of local optimum that we're stuck in for historical reasons and because the barriers to change are high. You might as well ask if an alien civilization would recognize the concept of daylight-savings-time, or the QWERTY keyboard, or the electoral college.
> But would they recognize 12 tones scales?
Assuming they have musical instruments and don't have far more digits (fingers or other dextrous appendages) than us, they probably would, and even if they did have more digits, it'd seem like a fairly obvious choice for a species with our anatomy. Especially for equal temperament, but also for just intonation, a 12-tone scale provides exceptionally good approximations or numerous instances of the simplest possible frequency ratios, so any creature that has to limit the number of tones on their instruments for practical considerations will have a high likelihood of stumbling on a 12-tone scale even before developing an understanding of why it actually works so well and/or find it a very compelling option given a more in-depth analysis.
Assuming they have musical instruments and don't have far more digits (fingers or other dextrous appendages) than us, they probably would, and even if they did have more digits, it'd seem like a fairly obvious choice for a species with our anatomy. Especially for equal temperament, but also for just intonation, a 12-tone scale provides exceptionally good approximations or numerous instances of the simplest possible frequency ratios, so any creature that has to limit the number of tones on their instruments for practical considerations will have a high likelihood of stumbling on a 12-tone scale even before developing an understanding of why it actually works so well and/or find it a very compelling option given a more in-depth analysis.
> But would they recognize 12 tones scales?
Relatively? More likely. "Oh yeah, we get that. At a number of levels which we call honktaves, incidentally."
Absolutely? As in, we have that set of frequencies bolted on to our culture too? Seems less likely.
Relatively? More likely. "Oh yeah, we get that. At a number of levels which we call honktaves, incidentally."
Absolutely? As in, we have that set of frequencies bolted on to our culture too? Seems less likely.
This essay would benefit from some examples of common beliefs that he thinks are not "Alien Truths", and what he thinks the implications of that are. As it is, I don't really see what he's trying to get at...
I call Alien Truth "What Is". It must form a common reality that each individual can point to and share.
More at: https://corinth.kardianos.com/
More at: https://corinth.kardianos.com/
> that it would be true for aliens that one can get better at something by practicing
I think that one depends a lot on how they learn or can transfer knowledge. We rely on language for it, and language is severely limited - We can't learn olympic gymnastics from watching TV, but a species that could directly transfer memories and behaviors would have a huge leg on us in that regard - I'd assume we'd quickly notice their fast-paced technological advance.
Or completely miss it, because they'd anyhilate themselves a couple hours after discovering the military use of nuclear fusion ;-)
I think that one depends a lot on how they learn or can transfer knowledge. We rely on language for it, and language is severely limited - We can't learn olympic gymnastics from watching TV, but a species that could directly transfer memories and behaviors would have a huge leg on us in that regard - I'd assume we'd quickly notice their fast-paced technological advance.
Or completely miss it, because they'd anyhilate themselves a couple hours after discovering the military use of nuclear fusion ;-)
This is a side topic, but does anyone else have problems with the RSS feed for pg's essays? http://paulgraham.com/rss.html I regularly find every essay appearing together in my reader, as though they were all new again.
Apparently the feed was created by Aaron Swartz himself, so I wouldn't think there would be any errors there. But it looks like it's hosted via Aaron's own site, so perhaps there's some problem caused by it not being maintained?
Apparently the feed was created by Aaron Swartz himself, so I wouldn't think there would be any errors there. But it looks like it's hosted via Aaron's own site, so perhaps there's some problem caused by it not being maintained?
If Occam's razor is presented as a truth (which is pretty subjective, as it depends on what we/someone considers "simple"). Then finding one case where what most people thought was the simple reason, was not actually the reason after evidence came to light, then Occam's razor can be rejected as a theory right?
I think this has long happened, and do not understand why this is still presented as "truth".
I prefer the standard of truth used by natural-sciences. The rest I find pretty bendable (virology included).
I think this has long happened, and do not understand why this is still presented as "truth".
I prefer the standard of truth used by natural-sciences. The rest I find pretty bendable (virology included).
> If Occam's razor is presented as a truth (which is pretty subjective, as it depends on what we/someone considers "simple").
It doesn't though. Firstly, Occam's razor is not about simplicity but about "parsimony". Parsimony is calculated in information theory via Kolmogorov complexity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
This then lets us describe how to do induction so it provably converges in the fastest way possible, Solomonoff Induction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...
Arguably, this can be seen as a formalization of the scientific process.
It doesn't though. Firstly, Occam's razor is not about simplicity but about "parsimony". Parsimony is calculated in information theory via Kolmogorov complexity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
This then lets us describe how to do induction so it provably converges in the fastest way possible, Solomonoff Induction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...
Arguably, this can be seen as a formalization of the scientific process.
> It doesn't though. Firstly, Occam's razor is not about simplicity but about "parsimony". Parsimony is calculated in information theory via Kolmogorov complexity
In theory perhaps, but in practice it is firstly calculated by the mind of the person who plays the Occam's Razor card, and then subsequently by people who ingest the claim, and typically all participants are performing their calculations using biased heuristics and flawed logic, and have negative interest in what is actually true, or if truth is even reachable.
In theory perhaps, but in practice it is firstly calculated by the mind of the person who plays the Occam's Razor card, and then subsequently by people who ingest the claim, and typically all participants are performing their calculations using biased heuristics and flawed logic, and have negative interest in what is actually true, or if truth is even reachable.
I personally believe we should also approach ethics from an Alien Truth perspective -- there's a lot of ethics and how we live our lives that's specific to our human being species, but we should expect the principles of human life to be compatible with more general principles, of which ours would be a special case. This really allows having a clearer global picture of ethics, and striving towards progress in ethics and human existence.
So very human of us to think our truths are some other beings truths. Maybe they proved math isn't true? Maybe they don't think in any way like we do.
Michael Levin has an interesting perspective on this. The idea is that biology and evolution are processes that reveal some inherent and latent universal structures and so they would be the same across all life in the universe even if such life was not carbon based. But at this level of generality it gets pretty abstract and the definition of truth essentially becomes some kind of structural similarity in form and function.
Why do people assume alien life would be intelligent? Intelligent life is extremely rare on earth and has only occured for a brief moment in its history due to highly specific environmental scenarios at the time as well has historical events. If we didn't get that meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, mammals would probably still be shrew like creatures as they were for millions of years until mass extinction exposed new ecological niches. The great oxygenation event could have easily killed off all life on earth too. Most of the biomass on earth today comes from plants, famously unintelligent and sessile, commonly using strategies that favor spawning thousands of offspring that have random mutations, with a few who go on to survive in an ecological niche.
If we use our own earth as a model, alien life is far more likely to be unintelligent. Its a big human bias to assume that if there were intelligent life out there, it would even think like human life, so our abstractions such as mathmatics and physics will probably look entirely different when a completely different mind formed from a different evolutionary trajectory encounters natural phenomenon and attempts to make truths. Even with our own species it took us millions of years to establish our current truths about what we consider true. This begs the question, if in millions of years we will consider our current abstractions that interpret physical laws of the universe to be just as worthless as past interpretations for these same physical laws that we used as truths in centuries previous.
If we use our own earth as a model, alien life is far more likely to be unintelligent. Its a big human bias to assume that if there were intelligent life out there, it would even think like human life, so our abstractions such as mathmatics and physics will probably look entirely different when a completely different mind formed from a different evolutionary trajectory encounters natural phenomenon and attempts to make truths. Even with our own species it took us millions of years to establish our current truths about what we consider true. This begs the question, if in millions of years we will consider our current abstractions that interpret physical laws of the universe to be just as worthless as past interpretations for these same physical laws that we used as truths in centuries previous.
> If there were intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe, they'd share certain truths in common with us. For example, I think we'd share the principle that a controlled experiment testing some hypothesis entitles us to have proportionally increased belief in it.
I was thinking more "triangular sandwiches taste better than square ones", but you do you!
I was thinking more "triangular sandwiches taste better than square ones", but you do you!
If I had to lay money on it, I'd be willing to favor the position that aliens we're talking to via radio have the concept of electrons, and metals, and the number forty-seven.
The really esoteric branches of mathematics, I could see huge variances. Materials sciences would vary widely. But the basic high school stuff? I'd lay odds on it.
The really esoteric branches of mathematics, I could see huge variances. Materials sciences would vary widely. But the basic high school stuff? I'd lay odds on it.
> We might find, for example, that it's impossible to create something we'd consider intelligent that doesn't use Occam's razor. We might one day even be able to prove that.
I have no idea how one would go about proving this but personally I would start with something like the "Principle of Least Action" applied to thought.
I have no idea how one would go about proving this but personally I would start with something like the "Principle of Least Action" applied to thought.
Speaking in broad generalities (heh) Category Theory is what you would use for that (AFAIK.)
Because using Category Theory for explaining things is the opposite of applying Occam's Razor? :-P
There is only one truth : There is no single truth !
Is a forest intelligent ? Is a cat intelligent ? Is a human intelligent ? Is a chess program intelligent ? Is a proof-assistant intelligent ? Is a numerical solver intelligent ? Is the universe intelligent ?
Depending on your choice of definitions, you can get the answers you like.
Some intelligences will be able to comprehend other types of intelligence. Depending on their resources. There is usually a price to be paid, whether in raw computation, memory, or speed. And this price may often induce a hierarchy where the relation is only one way : where the greater intelligence can predict how the states of the lesser one will evolve, but the lesser one can't.
Because these resources are of various nature, they generate a Pareto frontier. Only while the resources constraint stay relevant. For example, once you reach enough intelligence, given the rules of tic-tac-toe, you can play the optimal game. Similarly there are end-game tables for chess, that allow computers to play perfectly, but humans must use heuristics because they don't have enough memory.
But you can always create a bigger game, or constrain your resources. You can always be a collector of mathematical curiosities, that are in some sense some extrema in the space you chose to restrict yourself to.
AI will probably choose to live in constructs, where this dynamic game of collecting resources until they are no longer a constraint is perpetually maintained to keep it interesting, because the alternative omnipotence is no fun.
Those constructs will be so disconnected from reality, that we won't be able to acknowledge their existence.
Is a forest intelligent ? Is a cat intelligent ? Is a human intelligent ? Is a chess program intelligent ? Is a proof-assistant intelligent ? Is a numerical solver intelligent ? Is the universe intelligent ?
Depending on your choice of definitions, you can get the answers you like.
Some intelligences will be able to comprehend other types of intelligence. Depending on their resources. There is usually a price to be paid, whether in raw computation, memory, or speed. And this price may often induce a hierarchy where the relation is only one way : where the greater intelligence can predict how the states of the lesser one will evolve, but the lesser one can't.
Because these resources are of various nature, they generate a Pareto frontier. Only while the resources constraint stay relevant. For example, once you reach enough intelligence, given the rules of tic-tac-toe, you can play the optimal game. Similarly there are end-game tables for chess, that allow computers to play perfectly, but humans must use heuristics because they don't have enough memory.
But you can always create a bigger game, or constrain your resources. You can always be a collector of mathematical curiosities, that are in some sense some extrema in the space you chose to restrict yourself to.
AI will probably choose to live in constructs, where this dynamic game of collecting resources until they are no longer a constraint is perpetually maintained to keep it interesting, because the alternative omnipotence is no fun.
Those constructs will be so disconnected from reality, that we won't be able to acknowledge their existence.
"The Zoologist's Guide to the Galaxy" covers this, and a lot more: https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Zoologists-Guide-to-the-Galax...
Paul Graham needs to read this and get back to us.
Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being by George Lakoff
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53337
Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being by George Lakoff
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53337
Hopefully they don't share the belief with us that there must be one species conquering them all.
An assumption that this essay buys into is that "universal" truths are somehow higher-status and more worthy of study. How people come up with reasonable fixes to local messes doesn't get enough attention.
An alien truth that we can derive a lot of alien truth from is that life forms all prefer order rather than chaos. Having life is by itself is a very orderly process in relation to chaos, which implicitly opposes it.
one derivative would be discipline vs procrastinating, aliens won’t get far if they didn’t have any discipline. Heck even single cell organisms are highly single track disciplined.
[deleted]
I'm very confused, I see the page with that guy's article (or any of his articles for that matter), but I don't see any instructions on how you can get paid to read it.
[deleted]
This seems like lots of camp-fire speculation in awe of the night sky.
Before discussing what might be different with our "truth" and alien "truth" we should first define what we mean by "truth".
What if there is a War of Worlds? And we win. But according to the "alien truth" they win. This kind of thing seems to be going on some TV-channels already, The notion of "facts" is diluted by claiming that "We have alternate facts". "We have alternate electors". That just means it is unclear to many people what facts and truth mean and it is easy to misguide them.
Before discussing what might be different with our "truth" and alien "truth" we should first define what we mean by "truth".
What if there is a War of Worlds? And we win. But according to the "alien truth" they win. This kind of thing seems to be going on some TV-channels already, The notion of "facts" is diluted by claiming that "We have alternate facts". "We have alternate electors". That just means it is unclear to many people what facts and truth mean and it is easy to misguide them.
Math might be universal but I think you're really underestimating the potential for wildly differing perspectives on it.
> If there were intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe
Wow some people still think we're alone. Wow. Just, wow.
Wow some people still think we're alone. Wow. Just, wow.
[deleted]
Yeah, that first paragraph is completely wrong if you think about the universe in terms of computation...
PG use of image maps for site navigation always bring back 1990s Web "1.0" nostalgia to me.
That's a rather naive view of truth. For intuitionistic mathematics (which is very important for theoretical computer science), truth is a mental construct of a proof in a language, and only shared by communicating that construct to other minds.
The question is whether we can communicate our mathematics to non-humans, whose senses may be radically different from our own.
And likewise, would we be able to understand a non-human proof?
The question is whether we can communicate our mathematics to non-humans, whose senses may be radically different from our own.
And likewise, would we be able to understand a non-human proof?
> That's a rather naive view of truth.
I'm a puzzled by the confidence here. I would assume pg is at least minimally familiar with some of the key philosophical themes and schools of thought around this topic.
> For intuitionistic mathematics ... truth is a mental construct of a proof in a language, and only shared by communicating that construct to other minds.
Even assuming you are fully and accurately representing the intuitionist view, you must be aware that there are competing schools of thought with strong pedigrees, like mathematical platonism, that are grounded in a more realist view of mathematical objects.
PG didn't go so far as to stake out that position here in the essay, but his thought experiment leverages a view of mathematical truth that hues closer to this (platonist) camp.
> The question is whether we can communicate our mathematics to non-humans ...
That is an interesting question, but pg did not ask that question in the essay, and its answer doesn't seem relevant to the point he was trying to make.
I'm a puzzled by the confidence here. I would assume pg is at least minimally familiar with some of the key philosophical themes and schools of thought around this topic.
> For intuitionistic mathematics ... truth is a mental construct of a proof in a language, and only shared by communicating that construct to other minds.
Even assuming you are fully and accurately representing the intuitionist view, you must be aware that there are competing schools of thought with strong pedigrees, like mathematical platonism, that are grounded in a more realist view of mathematical objects.
PG didn't go so far as to stake out that position here in the essay, but his thought experiment leverages a view of mathematical truth that hues closer to this (platonist) camp.
> The question is whether we can communicate our mathematics to non-humans ...
That is an interesting question, but pg did not ask that question in the essay, and its answer doesn't seem relevant to the point he was trying to make.
It's Graham's confidence that I (and I think OP) find puzzling. He doesn't say "According to Platonist ideas...", or "In my opinion...". Just "mathematical truths are true by definition". There's a brashness and lack of nuance there that makes me want to stop reading.
Some of that is a stylistic judgement call on the part of pg. He wants to move quickly to his central idea, not enter into a nuanced discussion of the philosophy of mathematics.
I think pg is educated, at least the broad outline, of the age-old controversies in this topic and I'm grateful as a reader that he spares me the details and assumes some preliminary context.
I think pg is educated, at least the broad outline, of the age-old controversies in this topic and I'm grateful as a reader that he spares me the details and assumes some preliminary context.
He’s clearly not, is the thing, unless he has acquired that education in the last year or two.
His style of pop philosophy is useful in startups because it does not require context. It is ungrounded in actual philosophy, and would struggle to find an audience outside of this group.
His style of pop philosophy is useful in startups because it does not require context. It is ungrounded in actual philosophy, and would struggle to find an audience outside of this group.
I appreciate what you're saying; it's only the first paragraph and he wants to nail some initial things down that he sees as straightforward context or examples.
But it is not straightforward to me. Or, in my impression, most philosophers. I'm reluctant to agree that aliens will assign any importance or even understand concepts like geometry or calculus. So to me, it is not preliminary context but it is a critical part of the discussion.
But it is not straightforward to me. Or, in my impression, most philosophers. I'm reluctant to agree that aliens will assign any importance or even understand concepts like geometry or calculus. So to me, it is not preliminary context but it is a critical part of the discussion.
> I would assume pg is at least minimally familiar with some of the key philosophical themes and schools of thought around this topic.
But even a brief foray into discussions by actual philosophers will show that to not be true. What Paul Graham is doing is providing small subcultural insights tailored to an audience with a passing interest in philosophy.
But even a brief foray into discussions by actual philosophers will show that to not be true. What Paul Graham is doing is providing small subcultural insights tailored to an audience with a passing interest in philosophy.
> his thought experiment leverages a view of mathematical truth that hues closer to this (platonist) camp
I think the word in that idiom is 'hews', which means to adhere strictly to a standard, probably from the sense of the word meaning to strike or cut or beat - often used to talk about cutting a tree into shape.
I think the word in that idiom is 'hews', which means to adhere strictly to a standard, probably from the sense of the word meaning to strike or cut or beat - often used to talk about cutting a tree into shape.
> The question is whether we can communicate our mathematics to non-humans, whose senses may be radically different from our own.
I'm not sure why people find this so relevant. Regardless of the sense, there must be enough discernible structure to detect whether 0 of something is there, whether 1 of something is there, or whether there are many more than 1.
Human sense of smell might top out at differentiating maybe 4 or 5 different things, dogs can probably sense a lot more, but either way it lets us set up basic counting, and that's generally all you need for most of our math.
I'm not sure why people find this so relevant. Regardless of the sense, there must be enough discernible structure to detect whether 0 of something is there, whether 1 of something is there, or whether there are many more than 1.
Human sense of smell might top out at differentiating maybe 4 or 5 different things, dogs can probably sense a lot more, but either way it lets us set up basic counting, and that's generally all you need for most of our math.
How can you communicate the axioms of Peano arithmetic to intelligent extra-terrestrials, in a way that they would recognize it?
Well, first we could send a series of integers, each being a sequence of pulses, to convey the fact that we are talking about integers. Then express each axiom by a series of concrete examples. And repeat. Intelligent species should be good at recognizing patterns.
The ancient Egyptians expressed axioms by a series of concrete examples. Stating them as actual axioms or theorems with proofs (by Greeks, Indians and Chinese, among others) was an improvement.
How can we communicate actual axioms to extra-terrestrials?
Presumably we can create a kind of Rosetta Stone with different representations of logical and algebraic expressions, and maybe they can decode that if they can figure out how to decode whatever "broadcast" representation of this we come up with. And that assumes that they recognize such a broadcast as something from intelligent life.
How can we communicate actual axioms to extra-terrestrials?
Presumably we can create a kind of Rosetta Stone with different representations of logical and algebraic expressions, and maybe they can decode that if they can figure out how to decode whatever "broadcast" representation of this we come up with. And that assumes that they recognize such a broadcast as something from intelligent life.
Why would we identify a sequence of pulses as integers if, for example, the passage of time is perceived differently by aliens? Or if mathematics within alien life is based on atomic units of group like set logic, and so the sequence of pulses itself is seen as "1".
why would you do that? maybe what you really want is to show them that you can count too?
peano arithmetic (an axiomatiazation of counting) isn't how we count. It is how we make other things count for us.
peano arithmetic (an axiomatiazation of counting) isn't how we count. It is how we make other things count for us.
Would injustice exist in an alien society if that society didn't recognise it as such?
As much as I like PG's writing in general, this is him dipping his toes in waters that are already well studied and coming off as ignorant and/or presumptuous.
His very first premise "The truths of mathematics would be the same, because they're true by definition" shows an ignorance of an entire field of discourse called the philosophy of mathematics. Whether aliens would have the same math as us is one of the fundamental questions, and to presume the answer shows a disdain of the existing body of thought on this topic.
In particular, we humans still hotly debate which math is the "right" math. Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value? Is such a truth value amenable to human discovery? Does PG know the answers to all of these questions?
PG is either unaware of the human-choice nature of the fundaments of math or he thinks he has special knowledge of it. Either way makes this essay one of my least favorites.
His very first premise "The truths of mathematics would be the same, because they're true by definition" shows an ignorance of an entire field of discourse called the philosophy of mathematics. Whether aliens would have the same math as us is one of the fundamental questions, and to presume the answer shows a disdain of the existing body of thought on this topic.
In particular, we humans still hotly debate which math is the "right" math. Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value? Is such a truth value amenable to human discovery? Does PG know the answers to all of these questions?
PG is either unaware of the human-choice nature of the fundaments of math or he thinks he has special knowledge of it. Either way makes this essay one of my least favorites.
I think, like many commentators here, you're taking a very narrow technical view of what PG is talking about in what is actually a very broad a high level discussion.
Whether or not it's possible to prove a specific postulate in set theory is formally true (the axiom of choice, which was only formulated in 1904) isn't going to stop aliens counting objects and calculating the area of squares. They may not agree with us about formalism vs intuitionism, but it seems likely they would agree with us about a huge array of practical mathematical operations and results. PG is just asking what are the areas we would be extremely likely to agree on. Pointing out that there might be specific, advanced, highly obscure controversies we might disagree on isn't even in contention. Of course there are.
Whether or not it's possible to prove a specific postulate in set theory is formally true (the axiom of choice, which was only formulated in 1904) isn't going to stop aliens counting objects and calculating the area of squares. They may not agree with us about formalism vs intuitionism, but it seems likely they would agree with us about a huge array of practical mathematical operations and results. PG is just asking what are the areas we would be extremely likely to agree on. Pointing out that there might be specific, advanced, highly obscure controversies we might disagree on isn't even in contention. Of course there are.
It's turtles all the way down -- we don't know what "truth" is, or how one can come to "know" truth (as opposed to just believe it). I'm less informed on these topics so I avoided them, but I've heard that our notion of truth is intimately tied to our experience of physical reality, and it seems easy to imagine aliens that have different experiences of reality.
For example, what if aliens are so large that the non-euclidian nature of space becomes obvious to them? Perhaps they would never come up with euclidian geometry. Maybe they would never create the notion of pi. Yes it shows up in other areas but you can certainly imagine an alien civilization that has a different circumference-to-radius ratio or disavows the entire idea of having a constant circumference-to-radius ratio.
For example, what if aliens are so large that the non-euclidian nature of space becomes obvious to them? Perhaps they would never come up with euclidian geometry. Maybe they would never create the notion of pi. Yes it shows up in other areas but you can certainly imagine an alien civilization that has a different circumference-to-radius ratio or disavows the entire idea of having a constant circumference-to-radius ratio.
We only need to evaluate what is practically useful. At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science.
Newton's laws of motion strictly speaking are not true, Einstein proved this, but they are incredibly useful as is the mathematics we use to formalise them. We know that the quantum mechanics and relativity theories we have now and not complete, but that's beside the point.
PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do, and then goes further to suggest they might agree with us about a lot of the less strictly provable ones as well. Going "Oh well but this obscure question here would still be in contention" is, well, somewhat sailing past the point by a little smidgenette. It's criticising a claim I don't think it's reasonable to think PG is making.
Newton's laws of motion strictly speaking are not true, Einstein proved this, but they are incredibly useful as is the mathematics we use to formalise them. We know that the quantum mechanics and relativity theories we have now and not complete, but that's beside the point.
PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do, and then goes further to suggest they might agree with us about a lot of the less strictly provable ones as well. Going "Oh well but this obscure question here would still be in contention" is, well, somewhat sailing past the point by a little smidgenette. It's criticising a claim I don't think it's reasonable to think PG is making.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Another comment in this thread suggested using the value of pi to demonstrate intelligence, but you can imagine alien civilizations without the same reverence of pi as we do (if they are large enough). I mentioned in another comment that you can also imagine small enough aliens not inventing a real number line because they do not have the experience that everything is infinitely divisible.
I believe our difference is that you are presupposing that aliens will have essentially the same experience with reality that we do. I agree that if somehow a separate human civilization evolved in another galaxy, their math would likely look similar to ours. But you can imagine aliens that have very different experiences of "what actually works in the real world" (due to experiencing a different set of physics, such as at a different physical scale) and thus come up with different math.
I believe our difference is that you are presupposing that aliens will have essentially the same experience with reality that we do. I agree that if somehow a separate human civilization evolved in another galaxy, their math would likely look similar to ours. But you can imagine aliens that have very different experiences of "what actually works in the real world" (due to experiencing a different set of physics, such as at a different physical scale) and thus come up with different math.
We already have very robust descriptions of how the world works at every scale, from the planck length all the way up to the limits of the observable universe, and in extremes of environment from the surface of neutron stars, to the roiling virtual particles of empty space. We can calculate behaviours in these environments very precisely right now. Sure, there are things about these environments we still need to learn, but they're not utterly intractable or inconceivable to us.
There's a character Rimmer in a comedy series Red Dwarf that's always going on about how aliens would be unimaginable to use because they're alien and everything they do would be... well.. 'alien'. It's poking fun at SF that presents aliens as inherently utterly unintelligible to us simply by virtue of being alien, but frankly that's absurd. Physics doesn't care who or where you are, the same rules apply.
There's a character Rimmer in a comedy series Red Dwarf that's always going on about how aliens would be unimaginable to use because they're alien and everything they do would be... well.. 'alien'. It's poking fun at SF that presents aliens as inherently utterly unintelligible to us simply by virtue of being alien, but frankly that's absurd. Physics doesn't care who or where you are, the same rules apply.
Your brain is lying to you.
It's not your brain's fault, really. It doesn't know any better. Your brain has a way of interpreting the sensory perceptions communicated to it. It conflates this with 'reality' because it doesn't know anything thing else. And because it doesn't have anything else, it also declares itself the universal understander. Just like there are sounds you cannot hear, and chemicals you cannot taste, wavelengths you cannot see -- consider that there may be thoughts that you physically cannot think.
No magic and no spooky mysterious stuff. Just that it seems quite possible that our brains are limited in their ability to construct a representation of the universe, and insofar as the representation is true, we have kno way of knowing if it's the only true one.
It's not your brain's fault, really. It doesn't know any better. Your brain has a way of interpreting the sensory perceptions communicated to it. It conflates this with 'reality' because it doesn't know anything thing else. And because it doesn't have anything else, it also declares itself the universal understander. Just like there are sounds you cannot hear, and chemicals you cannot taste, wavelengths you cannot see -- consider that there may be thoughts that you physically cannot think.
No magic and no spooky mysterious stuff. Just that it seems quite possible that our brains are limited in their ability to construct a representation of the universe, and insofar as the representation is true, we have kno way of knowing if it's the only true one.
If you know what Turing complete means, and what a universal Turing machine is and can do, and that we are examples of such, then you must realise that’s not true. Provably. Unless you’re a dualist of some sort and believe thinking is some sort of spiritual woo, in which case I can’t help you. But I can imagine what that’s like (see what I did there?).
Seriously, there are sensory experiences I can’t have, but in principle no thoughts that are intractable to analysis and understanding given enough information.
Seriously, there are sensory experiences I can’t have, but in principle no thoughts that are intractable to analysis and understanding given enough information.
Our brains are technically only "turing complete" if you ignore their finite memory. (Edit: which is what is commonly meant by turing complete.)
It seems pretty obvious that there are thoughts that are too big to fit inside our heads.
It seems pretty obvious that there are thoughts that are too big to fit inside our heads.
Again this is descending into nitpicking at the extremes. PG is not saying everything we understand will be in common with aliens, or that our cognitive match with them will be 1 to 1, just that there is likely to be overlap. That given the universality of human cognition, there is likely to be thoughts we can mutually appreciate. I am not claiming that human brains are capable of all thought possible to aliens, only that there will be common ground. That’s all. It’s a very minimal claim.
Pointing out possible edge cases is a non sequitur. Of course there will be things we don’t have in common. Yes, we know that. The fact we’re explicitly looking at common ground from first principles implicitly acknowledges there will be ground not in common. That’s given.
Pointing out possible edge cases is a non sequitur. Of course there will be things we don’t have in common. Yes, we know that. The fact we’re explicitly looking at common ground from first principles implicitly acknowledges there will be ground not in common. That’s given.
You said that JackFr was provably incorrect. I'm not pointing out an edge case but pointing out the massive hole in your argument.
As a limited computing system, our brain has been optimized to process the world in specific ways using various heuristics and compression techniques. Alien brains would presumably be optimized in different ways. Given our limited capabilities, it seems quite possible that translating any concepts between the two systems would be unfeasible for either our brain or the alien one.
I would like to think that there would common ground but that isn't something that can be known a priori, and is thus not presently "proveable".
Edit: We do have some fairly "alien" brains here on earth but we haven't had much luck teaching any mollusks any of our mathematical truths.
As a limited computing system, our brain has been optimized to process the world in specific ways using various heuristics and compression techniques. Alien brains would presumably be optimized in different ways. Given our limited capabilities, it seems quite possible that translating any concepts between the two systems would be unfeasible for either our brain or the alien one.
I would like to think that there would common ground but that isn't something that can be known a priori, and is thus not presently "proveable".
Edit: We do have some fairly "alien" brains here on earth but we haven't had much luck teaching any mollusks any of our mathematical truths.
OK, then walk out the window of my old apartment.
I see it as being on the third floor, but that's only my brain lying to me, right?
I see it as being on the third floor, but that's only my brain lying to me, right?
Yes, but the point I think is that the rules of symbolic reasoning are not like the rules of physics; formal systems have an arbitrary shape, so exploring the universe from a different starting point could yield a completely different method of representing it and processing information about it. And such methods needs not be compatible with our understanding of math.
You've already presupposed that experimenting across all those scales is somehow an integral (necessary?) part of being the kind of life that we might encounter.
That could be possible, but I don't think that we can assume that.
That could be possible, but I don't think that we can assume that.
Pi is the human joke of the galaxy--they all use Tau.
> We only need to evaluate what is practically useful.
As simple as this may seem, a few problematic points:
- who decides who gets included in "we"?
- who decides what "evaluate" is composed of?
- who decides what is practical, and useful?
- there is an implicit dimension of Time: for example, many things were initially categorized as useful, but then it can turn out to be a lot more complicated (Thalidomide, fossil fuels, arguably democracy & journalism (at least as they are practised, which seems to be fairly immutable))
Of course, these issues can be easily dismissed ("pedantic!"), but that doesn't make them go away.
> At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science.
Another problem we have is language (and various other things, semantics, semiotics, etc) - in this example, a reader could easily take away a few not necessarily correct beliefs from the way you've worded it:
- it could be (very poorly) interpreted to mean science does only this (and nothing else)
- it could be interpreted to mean science alone does this
- it could be interpreted to mean that the output of science (what actually works in the real world) is comprehensive, as in "all that works has been discovered by science - and if it isn't, science would (or will) find it"
- it could be interpreted to mean that science alone is able to produce accuracy, truth, and verification
- it could be interpreted to mean (or, a person may just not consider) that "what works" is not necessarily a constant over time (see: Thalidomide, fossil fuels)
To be clear, I'm not saying you're asserting these things, I'm just pointing out that language is extremely ambiguous and can be misleading.
As simple as this may seem, a few problematic points:
- who decides who gets included in "we"?
- who decides what "evaluate" is composed of?
- who decides what is practical, and useful?
- there is an implicit dimension of Time: for example, many things were initially categorized as useful, but then it can turn out to be a lot more complicated (Thalidomide, fossil fuels, arguably democracy & journalism (at least as they are practised, which seems to be fairly immutable))
Of course, these issues can be easily dismissed ("pedantic!"), but that doesn't make them go away.
> At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science.
Another problem we have is language (and various other things, semantics, semiotics, etc) - in this example, a reader could easily take away a few not necessarily correct beliefs from the way you've worded it:
- it could be (very poorly) interpreted to mean science does only this (and nothing else)
- it could be interpreted to mean science alone does this
- it could be interpreted to mean that the output of science (what actually works in the real world) is comprehensive, as in "all that works has been discovered by science - and if it isn't, science would (or will) find it"
- it could be interpreted to mean that science alone is able to produce accuracy, truth, and verification
- it could be interpreted to mean (or, a person may just not consider) that "what works" is not necessarily a constant over time (see: Thalidomide, fossil fuels)
To be clear, I'm not saying you're asserting these things, I'm just pointing out that language is extremely ambiguous and can be misleading.
> PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do
This isn't even accurate for the different peoples on our one planet.
This isn't even accurate for the different peoples on our one planet.
It really is, that’s why the basic mathematical principled discovered in India, Mesopotamia and Greece have spread and been further developed throughout the world. Because they work just as well everywhere. The Maya discovered the natural numbers and zero, did arithmetic and performed calendrical and astronomical calculations. China developed their numerical system independently, calculated Pi, performed division, root extraction and linear algebra and many original techniques. The forms of expression and some techniques were unique but maths is maths.
I'm saying that beings developing "basic math" isn't even a given on this planet.
All of your examples come from societies where not being able to count and record with perfect precision meant that you were going to be screwed by people who could at the market. They're also no strangers to conflict, and math wins battles. They share characteristics because they had similar pressures and desires.
Imagine a thriving group of people who only use the numbers "one", "two", and "many". What sort of environment and point of view would lead to such a situation, given equivalent intelligence? How do they navigate their universe so successfully?
Unfortunately most of the research I've read in this area has focused on what people like this can't do relative to our framework, and hasn't been especially curious about what we can't do relative to theirs.
All of your examples come from societies where not being able to count and record with perfect precision meant that you were going to be screwed by people who could at the market. They're also no strangers to conflict, and math wins battles. They share characteristics because they had similar pressures and desires.
Imagine a thriving group of people who only use the numbers "one", "two", and "many". What sort of environment and point of view would lead to such a situation, given equivalent intelligence? How do they navigate their universe so successfully?
Unfortunately most of the research I've read in this area has focused on what people like this can't do relative to our framework, and hasn't been especially curious about what we can't do relative to theirs.
All those cultures were running on the same hardware, so to speak. Let's see what the squids have to say.
We’ll, there’s some evidence octopi and squid can count. If so then at least there’s some elementary maths in common. There’s no reason to suppose super intelligent cephalopod creatures would have particular difficulty with things like natural numbers, for all their different experience of the world. Two shrimp plus two shrimp is still the same amount of food as one shrimp plus three shrimp, no matter how many arms you have.
To a whale there would be either many shrimp or zero shrimp.
> It's turtles all the way down -- we don't know what "truth" is, or how one can come to "know" truth
> I've heard that our notion of truth is intimately tied to our experience of physical reality
It's been thousands of years since the first retorsion arguments were recorded, and yet I still see obviously self-refuting or self-undermining claims being made and quite often. Like these.
> I've heard that our notion of truth is intimately tied to our experience of physical reality
It's been thousands of years since the first retorsion arguments were recorded, and yet I still see obviously self-refuting or self-undermining claims being made and quite often. Like these.
> imagine an alien civilization that has a different circumference-to-radius ratio
Aliens still live in our Universe with our physics. Are these aliens bigger than the solar system?
Maybe a different universe with different parameters could look m athematically different in major ways.
Aliens still live in our Universe with our physics. Are these aliens bigger than the solar system?
Maybe a different universe with different parameters could look m athematically different in major ways.
Again, talking a bit outside my comfort zone, but I believe our universe's physics say that circles only have a fixed circumference-to-radius ratio at "small" (astronomically) scales. At large enough scales space is curved and the ratio begins to change.
In a similar way, a set of different physics would apply to small enough aliens that are principally governed by quantum mechanics. They might never come up with the real numbers because they do not believe that quantities are dense.
We could think of more examples -- aliens who typically move at speeds close to the speed of light would have very different conceptions of time, etc.
In a similar way, a set of different physics would apply to small enough aliens that are principally governed by quantum mechanics. They might never come up with the real numbers because they do not believe that quantities are dense.
We could think of more examples -- aliens who typically move at speeds close to the speed of light would have very different conceptions of time, etc.
Our best estimate for the topology of the universe at the largest scale is that it is 'flat'. If it has curvature, it's below the margin of error we are able to measure it at. The only thing we know that can curve space significantly is gravity, but it would take truly stupendously strong gravity fields to significantly change basic results from classical geometry, such as those close to the event horizon of a black hole. Even then we can calculate it accurately nowadays so our results would still correspond to theirs even in those circumstances.
If we aren't talking about the same things, we wouldn't be talking about the same things.
Part of establishing communication is ensuring we're talking about the same things.
Therefore, once we've established communication, we'd be talking about the same things, such as what a flat plane is.
If you think humans are the only species capable of comprehending Euclidean geometry, say so, and defend the assertion.
Part of establishing communication is ensuring we're talking about the same things.
Therefore, once we've established communication, we'd be talking about the same things, such as what a flat plane is.
If you think humans are the only species capable of comprehending Euclidean geometry, say so, and defend the assertion.
Squares do not exist outside of abstract axioms. Solids projected from them share the same status. A mason making a tile forces reality to approximate the concept. Even crystalline structures which suggest them are too approximate. Why is a square implicit to an alien?
No shade to you personally, but I really dislike this frame of thought.
There are mountains and mountains of literature about a great deal of things, no one human can be expected to be aware of them all.
Since that is obviously true, the lack of awareness about a single topic isn’t “ignorance” - it’s not like PG studiously ignored all of that literature. More likely he just never came across it, so the more apt word is “unaware” rather than “ignorant”.
To criticize someone merely for pondering about a subject they aren’t well-versed in is hostile gatekeeping. I think those who are educated in the relevant subject would do well to be more welcoming and informative to newcomers.
There are mountains and mountains of literature about a great deal of things, no one human can be expected to be aware of them all.
Since that is obviously true, the lack of awareness about a single topic isn’t “ignorance” - it’s not like PG studiously ignored all of that literature. More likely he just never came across it, so the more apt word is “unaware” rather than “ignorant”.
To criticize someone merely for pondering about a subject they aren’t well-versed in is hostile gatekeeping. I think those who are educated in the relevant subject would do well to be more welcoming and informative to newcomers.
That's true, but this essay is written with an authoritative voice, not a pondering one. PG tends to write as if he is teaching his audience something profound. So I think it's fair to call out when he is wrong or misguided.
This might just be a subjective thing then. My impression was that he was simply following a casual train of thought.
I agree with the other comment that my words “hostile gatekeeping” were too strong. I just get irritated with philosophers specifically, because philosophy itself is a normal human experience. Everyone finds themselves thinking about things that veer into philosophical subjects. To even criticize people for doing so without reading the professional literature is just so annoying to me.
I agree with the other comment that my words “hostile gatekeeping” were too strong. I just get irritated with philosophers specifically, because philosophy itself is a normal human experience. Everyone finds themselves thinking about things that veer into philosophical subjects. To even criticize people for doing so without reading the professional literature is just so annoying to me.
I think philosophers get a bit annoyed about this because they've spent literal years and years thinking about something that might be quite esoteric/tricky, and then someone comes along and just assumes the answer as if there hasn't been decades of discourse about this exact thing.
The subtext in your comment is that everyone does philosophy all the time, and there's no difference between professional and amateur philosophers.
The subtext in your comment is that everyone does philosophy all the time, and there's no difference between professional and amateur philosophers.
> then someone comes along and just assumes the answer as if there hasn't been decades of discourse about this exact thing.
I'd think that would present itself as a rather pleasant opportunity for any bypassing philosopher to stop and teach them about the "decades of discourse" on it rather than being annoyed?
I'd think that would present itself as a rather pleasant opportunity for any bypassing philosopher to stop and teach them about the "decades of discourse" on it rather than being annoyed?
Yeah that’s what I’ve seen before from chemists, biologists, geologists, physicists, etc. They’re excited, not irritated, to share their knowledge with the public.
Nobody does this stuff to those kinds of scientists.
True. But PG's authoritative status is weakened due to his lack of awareness no matter how you change the wording. This entire essay is weaker because of it as my opinion about his knowledge.
>To criticize someone merely for pondering about a subject they aren’t well-versed in is hostile gatekeeping.
The words "hostile gatekeeping" makes me classify your statement as accusatory and an actual attack. The Op's statements are just criticism. Harsh but valid, it certainly isn't hostile gatekeeping. In fact, PG is the gatekeeper here. He owns the site.
>To criticize someone merely for pondering about a subject they aren’t well-versed in is hostile gatekeeping.
The words "hostile gatekeeping" makes me classify your statement as accusatory and an actual attack. The Op's statements are just criticism. Harsh but valid, it certainly isn't hostile gatekeeping. In fact, PG is the gatekeeper here. He owns the site.
Yeah my words were too strong, I’ll own that. I didn’t mean to come across so aggressive.
Another way to phrase it: if someone were to follow a thought experiment in a another subject like biology or geology, the response from the educated community would be different. I’ve seen it on here before. The response is something akin to “hey yep that’s an interesting thought. It’s been done before, here are some links if you’re interested in reading further”.
I just tend to see a very different (much more critical) response from people in philosophy, often with overtones of condescension and smugness. Not saying OP was guilty of that, just that I mistakenly responded as if they did.
Another way to phrase it: if someone were to follow a thought experiment in a another subject like biology or geology, the response from the educated community would be different. I’ve seen it on here before. The response is something akin to “hey yep that’s an interesting thought. It’s been done before, here are some links if you’re interested in reading further”.
I just tend to see a very different (much more critical) response from people in philosophy, often with overtones of condescension and smugness. Not saying OP was guilty of that, just that I mistakenly responded as if they did.
> the lack of awareness about a single topic isn’t “ignorance”
Since everybody is nitpicking here, I'll add that this is indeed ignorance. We're know what we know, and are ignorant of what we don't. Being ignorant by itself shouldn't be viewed as a flaw, but an inevitable state of our limited capacity to learn. The real flaw is being proud of staying willfully ignorant.
Since everybody is nitpicking here, I'll add that this is indeed ignorance. We're know what we know, and are ignorant of what we don't. Being ignorant by itself shouldn't be viewed as a flaw, but an inevitable state of our limited capacity to learn. The real flaw is being proud of staying willfully ignorant.
I agree with what you're saying, but practically speaking, using the word "ignorant" is universally interpreted as a negative term.
It is not universally interpreted as negative. I have often said in conversation; “Please explain [x] to me, as I’m ignorant as to how that fits in/works/etc.” I certainly don’t say it to demean myself.
Ignorant is unaware. I’m sure there are loads of things that you have ignorance of, such as the meaning of Ignorance:
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing: "they were ignorant of astronomy"
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing: "they were ignorant of astronomy"
Math is a formal game. You can define vastly varied algebraic structures, and, as long as they are internally consistent, we could consider them "mathematical".
But the physical reality makes some structures more important in practice. Hence natural numbers, or real numbers, or complex numbers stand out among the sea of possible group structures.
Chances are very high that aliens live in the universe with the same laws of physics, which make the same, or isomorphic, structures important for them, and thus informing the development of their mathematics.
But this is not a given, of course; there can potentially be different ways to describe physical reality which are comparably successful, but which grow from entirely different foundations, are internally consistent, and otherwise work like our mathematics, but are not connected to it (yet).
Even more funny is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that "our" (currently developed) mathematics contain true statements which cannot be proven either true or false within the set of axioms which produce our mathematics. One can imagine that these true statements can be used to successfully describe important aspects of physical reality and were discovered by aliens for this purpose, while remaining incomprehensible for us. (But this is softer sci-fi stuff, of course.)
But the physical reality makes some structures more important in practice. Hence natural numbers, or real numbers, or complex numbers stand out among the sea of possible group structures.
Chances are very high that aliens live in the universe with the same laws of physics, which make the same, or isomorphic, structures important for them, and thus informing the development of their mathematics.
But this is not a given, of course; there can potentially be different ways to describe physical reality which are comparably successful, but which grow from entirely different foundations, are internally consistent, and otherwise work like our mathematics, but are not connected to it (yet).
Even more funny is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that "our" (currently developed) mathematics contain true statements which cannot be proven either true or false within the set of axioms which produce our mathematics. One can imagine that these true statements can be used to successfully describe important aspects of physical reality and were discovered by aliens for this purpose, while remaining incomprehensible for us. (But this is softer sci-fi stuff, of course.)
> But this is not a given, of course; there can potentially be different ways to describe physical reality which are comparably successful, but which grow from entirely different foundations, are internally consistent, and otherwise work like our mathematics, but are not connected to it (yet).
Are you or anybody else aware of any other way to describe physical reality? Maybe some culture took a different path. That would be very interesting. It seems almost impossible to imagine one for me though.
Are you or anybody else aware of any other way to describe physical reality? Maybe some culture took a different path. That would be very interesting. It seems almost impossible to imagine one for me though.
Ted Chiang's short novel "Story of Your Life" [0], later turned into the movie "Arrival", describes an alien culture which uses variational calculus [1] as the normal way to describe physics, that is, their equations are mostly about finding functions with extrema of certain kind, not just derivatives (as are the normal PDUs we use in physics). The idea is that "our" equations mostly deal with the arrow of time and thus use terms like dx/dt extensively, while "their" equations are about the entire configuration of something in spacetime, not singling out the time dimension.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Your_Life
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Your_Life
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations
Thank for for the references that is really fascinating.
> Math is a formal game
> Even more funny is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that "our" (currently developed) mathematics contain true statements which cannot be proven either true or false within the set of axioms which produce our mathematics
These two statements together suggest that math isn't actually a formal game, but that formal methods offer an useful method for dealing with it.
> Even more funny is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that "our" (currently developed) mathematics contain true statements which cannot be proven either true or false within the set of axioms which produce our mathematics
These two statements together suggest that math isn't actually a formal game, but that formal methods offer an useful method for dealing with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Or, infinitely caveating all of your writing is tedious and makes it less interesting to read. It's more respectful to your readers to assume they understand this and will apply the principle of charity.
Or, infinitely caveating all of your writing is tedious and makes it less interesting to read. It's more respectful to your readers to assume they understand this and will apply the principle of charity.
I'd expect aliens to have discovered their equivalent of the Church-Turing thesis, Tarski's externality of truth, Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc. That would give them a strong ability to model our mathematics within their own and see its computational structure and begin finding correspondences to theirs. Similarly, we could begin modeling their conception of mathematics in a similar way and as soon as we both have arrived at a morphism between our representation and theirs of some particular theorem we could grow our knowledge and understanding of the other.
The key is that mathematics flows from logic and logic flows from computation and computation is universal.
The key is that mathematics flows from logic and logic flows from computation and computation is universal.
This seems like an uncharitable take, the set of axioms and definitions used doesn't really fall under "mathematical truths", it's about agreement on what is implied by a given set of axioms. Even on Earth many people work in alternatives to ZFC and generally don't really disagree about what is "true".
Yet "what is implied by a given set of axioms" is the most common definition of "what's true" in mathematics. Therefore, an alien culture using completely different axioms and rules could arrive to an extremely alien math.
There might be some parts of it that are translatable to our own systems, but there's no guarantee that both systems will be ultimately compatible.
There might be some parts of it that are translatable to our own systems, but there's no guarantee that both systems will be ultimately compatible.
> In particular, we humans still hotly debate which math is the "right" math. Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value? Is such a truth value amenable to human discovery? Does PG know the answers to all of these questions?
If we did encounter intelligent (and peaceful!) beings out in the universe, there would be a set theory gold rush as people race to put out papers that such-and-such alien axiom implies choice, diamond principle, etc., or the other way around.
Every field of math would have such a gold rush really, on both sides, as we discover similarities and differences in techniques and formulations. And I bet famous unsolved problems on both sides would get solutions if not outright provided by the other species, then at least using novel tools from the other species.
I can't imagine a more exciting time for math as a whole than first contact.
If we did encounter intelligent (and peaceful!) beings out in the universe, there would be a set theory gold rush as people race to put out papers that such-and-such alien axiom implies choice, diamond principle, etc., or the other way around.
Every field of math would have such a gold rush really, on both sides, as we discover similarities and differences in techniques and formulations. And I bet famous unsolved problems on both sides would get solutions if not outright provided by the other species, then at least using novel tools from the other species.
I can't imagine a more exciting time for math as a whole than first contact.
Take some number of things. Lay them out more or less in a straight line. Somewhere in that line, put a little gap. Count them from left to right. Then count them from right to left. You get the same number.
That experiment is saying that addition commutes. If an alien ran that experiment, they would get the same answer.
Lay out some things in regular rows in a rectangle. Count the things row by row. Then count the things column by column. You'll get the same answer. So will an alien. That is, multiplication commutes both for us and for the aliens.
Now, as you go further into mathematics, things are true because they follow from the definitions, but the aliens may use different definitions. They may have a different definitions for, say, a commutative ring, and so abstract algebra may be different for them. But with the same definitions, we would arrive at the same conclusions.
That experiment is saying that addition commutes. If an alien ran that experiment, they would get the same answer.
Lay out some things in regular rows in a rectangle. Count the things row by row. Then count the things column by column. You'll get the same answer. So will an alien. That is, multiplication commutes both for us and for the aliens.
Now, as you go further into mathematics, things are true because they follow from the definitions, but the aliens may use different definitions. They may have a different definitions for, say, a commutative ring, and so abstract algebra may be different for them. But with the same definitions, we would arrive at the same conclusions.
Good analogy but is it so crazy to think the concept of counting in a particular direction wouldn't make sense to an alien intelligence? That the way their brain processes inputs means that the knowledge of the total number occurs to them either subconsciously or as the result of parallel processing that is beyond what human brains can even imagine being aware of? Even if the input signals being counted are separated by time (e.g. pulses of light or sound), such that their brains must logically store the previous count and increment it as new signals are detected, the concept of ordered addition (i.e. where we can conceive of "x plus y" and "y plus x" as separate concepts, even if they yield the same result) might simply not be necessary or possible in an alien brain.
What even qualifies as "addition" at all is somewhat murky - e.g. "addition" of relativistic velocities is non-commutative (*), but is it meaningfully even addition in the same way adding integer counts is?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Prop...
What even qualifies as "addition" at all is somewhat murky - e.g. "addition" of relativistic velocities is non-commutative (*), but is it meaningfully even addition in the same way adding integer counts is?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Prop...
> If an alien ran that experiment, they would get the same answer.
This depends on the world they live in. If, for example, things were hard to control, tended to move, to disappear (and reappear in a different place), to look the same, etc., they would probably discover quantum field theory before arithmetic!
This depends on the world they live in. If, for example, things were hard to control, tended to move, to disappear (and reappear in a different place), to look the same, etc., they would probably discover quantum field theory before arithmetic!
they would probably discover quantum field theory before arithmetic!
Sure, but much like we eventually discovered quantum field theory, they'll eventually discover arithmetic. And even if for some weird reason they hadn't, they're probably smart enough to understand it once we demonstrate it to them.
Sure, but much like we eventually discovered quantum field theory, they'll eventually discover arithmetic. And even if for some weird reason they hadn't, they're probably smart enough to understand it once we demonstrate it to them.
That's logically impossible for many reasons, the first of which is that arithmetic is a prerequisite for quantum field theory, and that secondly quantum effects like those don't occur at scales at which intelligent organisms live.
I agree with what you’re saying, at the thresholds of math (and even quite a bit before) it gets very murky very quickly,
But I think in this context he may have been better to say “arithmetic” or maybe root logical operations, because he was trying to convey small axiomatic units of universal truth rather than pull an entire field “into purity”
I could say the same about his comment about Carbon, the exact mass of carbon we use is influenced by isotopes and is not exactly standardised in all human chemistry - so it’s likely the aliens idea of “the mass of carbon” would also be slightly different. A better example would be “the atomic number of carbon” which is always the same because it’s definitional and integer, but the same point is there - he’s conveying the existence of the tiny axioms (alien truths), not trying to define them
But I think in this context he may have been better to say “arithmetic” or maybe root logical operations, because he was trying to convey small axiomatic units of universal truth rather than pull an entire field “into purity”
I could say the same about his comment about Carbon, the exact mass of carbon we use is influenced by isotopes and is not exactly standardised in all human chemistry - so it’s likely the aliens idea of “the mass of carbon” would also be slightly different. A better example would be “the atomic number of carbon” which is always the same because it’s definitional and integer, but the same point is there - he’s conveying the existence of the tiny axioms (alien truths), not trying to define them
> But I think in this context he may have been better to say “arithmetic” or maybe root logical operations, because he was trying to convey small axiomatic units of universal truth rather than pull an entire field “into purity”
What makes you think that arithmetic and logic are universal? A culture with a completely different way of thinking may not arrive to a system similar to our mathematics based on logical reasoning and search of consistency. Heck, we can see it in a lot of human beings who are not capable of consistent logical reasoning, and they're not even alien.
What makes you think that arithmetic and logic are universal? A culture with a completely different way of thinking may not arrive to a system similar to our mathematics based on logical reasoning and search of consistency. Heck, we can see it in a lot of human beings who are not capable of consistent logical reasoning, and they're not even alien.
> Heck, we can see it in a lot of human beings who are not capable of consistent logical reasoning, and they're not even alien.
All humans share this flaw (if it is a flaw). Not just some. We all do. It’s part of what makes us human—we have emotions that for better or worse transcend logic and reasoning.
In fact I could maybe argue that emotion is an important part of logic and reasoning. Emotion leads to skepticism and thinking outside the box. Both traits are needed to advance our understanding of the world.
All humans share this flaw (if it is a flaw). Not just some. We all do. It’s part of what makes us human—we have emotions that for better or worse transcend logic and reasoning.
In fact I could maybe argue that emotion is an important part of logic and reasoning. Emotion leads to skepticism and thinking outside the box. Both traits are needed to advance our understanding of the world.
I was thinking of simple arithmetic like addition and simple logical operations like “and” and “or”
I was illustrating the existence of these things - like PG was doing in the article - not attempting to define them
I was illustrating the existence of these things - like PG was doing in the article - not attempting to define them
Yes, but these things exist because our brains reason this way, not because they are constants of nature. Other intelligent beings could have different non-symbolic ways of gathering and processing information about nature, such as evolving cellular automata adequate to represent and solve problems.
Math isn't choosing which axioms to use, is finding the consequences of a given set.
"The truths of mathematics would be the same, because they're true by definition" means that "(x => y) AND x" means y is true based on the definition of => and AND. There's no "philosophy" behind this.
Why would aliens have the same definitions? Your AND maybe wouldn't exist to them. They could have a more statistical/global non-binary/discrete mathematics.
I assume that PG was talking about "intelligent" aliens, which, for the sake of argument, let's say are those capable of interstellar communication (building radio telescopes and whatnot).
I cannot fathom such a civilization not having discovered Boolean logic.
I cannot fathom such a civilization not having discovered Boolean logic.
I don't see why it's so absurd to think another alien species could develop interstellar communication without even being sentient in the way we understand it at all, or at least have anything like the level of abstract self-awareness that humans do. They may just experience something more equivalent to "emotional" reactions when attempting to manipulate the natural world to create technology in such a way that it guides them towards a successful outcome. Indeed comprehending Boolean logic seems no more necessary for that than it is for a dog in order to understand that when something in front of them is person 1 OR person 2, AND that certain sounds are coming from that person, they should sit.
You're right about dogs, but dogs cannot build radio telescopes so I don't understand the point. To be capable of interstellar communication, you have to be able to build machines, and doing so requires a systematic engineering culture and understanding of at least basic principles.
To put it differently, do you think such an advanced civilization would not be able to do something as simple as calculus, which would be far more advanced than manipulating a basic truth table? They almost certainly won't do it in any language that we understand on Earth, but they'll be manipulating and reasoning about the same concepts.
To put it differently, do you think such an advanced civilization would not be able to do something as simple as calculus, which would be far more advanced than manipulating a basic truth table? They almost certainly won't do it in any language that we understand on Earth, but they'll be manipulating and reasoning about the same concepts.
I honestly don't know, but I do think it's dangerous to assume an alien mind capable of interstellar communication would "think" sufficiently like human brains do for abstract concepts like calculus to be necessary or even make sense.
They would have to have developed calculus in order to build radio telescopes. We're not talking about how they think, we're talking about their understanding of concepts. These concepts are all hard prerequisites to being a species that can communicate across the stars.
But what does "understanding of a concept" mean if you have no idea how they think?
And I disagree, I reckon even as humans we could come up with ways we might be able to build a device able to send radio signals interstellar distances without even having any real understanding of how it works.
After all, beings as complex as ourselves came into existence via mechanisms that didn't involve, as far as we know, any sort of sentient understanding of the concepts of natural selection or basic laws of physics/chemistry/biology that you might think would be "hard prerequisites" for an ecosystem that can generate such an outcome. If there were a high selective pressure for the ability to transmit long-distance radio signals, do you really think natural selection could never have led to species natively capable of doing so?
> Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value? Is such a truth value amenable to human discovery?
I imagine PG would say that these are not purely mathematical questions, but rather metamathematical questions. Theorems remain theorems regardless of whether the axiom of choice is "true", although one may contend that theorems assuming that the AOC is false (or true) are vacuous. Aliens would surely agree with us on statements of the form "working in first-order logic (or whatever) formalized in XXX way, assuming axioms YYY and ZZZ, we may prove that...".
I imagine PG would say that these are not purely mathematical questions, but rather metamathematical questions. Theorems remain theorems regardless of whether the axiom of choice is "true", although one may contend that theorems assuming that the AOC is false (or true) are vacuous. Aliens would surely agree with us on statements of the form "working in first-order logic (or whatever) formalized in XXX way, assuming axioms YYY and ZZZ, we may prove that...".
To be fair, someone writes this type of comment every time he posts. It's not a unique take. It falls into the "well studied" category you mention.
> In particular, we humans still hotly debate which math is the "right" math. Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value?
I would love examples of this. Seems pretty cool to think about. I always assumed that “math” would be one of the constructs we could always reliably communicate with.
I would love examples of this. Seems pretty cool to think about. I always assumed that “math” would be one of the constructs we could always reliably communicate with.
I really like the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. In this case: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
Not that I agree with the argument, but this is relevant:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-aga...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-aga...
A very interesting take. Your link is a worthy prize for enduring most of the other comments around this thread.
Math has proven its predictive powers in the real world over and over. It's quite a stretch for it to be fundamentally wrong.
I don't know for the axiom of choice but I would be surprised if 1+1=2 is not universal, whatever way is used to express it
Is that "math" though, or just a particular construct in the system of math? I could imagine an alien mind that does not break things down across integer boundaries, when you consider that any labelings and groupings are arbitrary. That 1 "hat" you are wearing plus that 1 "hat" your buddy is wearing are actually not 1 and 1 but a conglomeration of fields/particles in an arbitrary configuration that can be torn or shredded or turned into plasma.
You could construct such a mind in a simulation but I doubt one would arise naturally in the physical constraints of our universe. Approximate discretization is everywhere.
At the end of the day, you've still identified that particular configuration as a "hat"- a configuration forming a discrete unit. Without it, you have no concept of object permanence and no basis for comprehending any form of logic at all. After all, even within plasma, there are discrete units which are configurations of other discrete units.
But these discrete units in the plasma are also model constructs of ours rather than fundamental properties of nature. The point is that any discrete lines we draw are ours, and not necessarily nature's. Of course we have no concept of object permanence without these, because concepts and objects are discrete models we create ourselves. It's tautological.
I agree. Consider the octopus - each of it's limbs contains it's own cortex and so it has in essence 8 separable brains. Or ants and bees which contain a hive intelligence. An ant has almost no neurons, but the collective number of neurons of an ant hive approaches that of a human brain. These are only creatures that are on our earth that have radically alternative ways of experiencing intelligence. Why would we expect aliens to have an intelligence that's at all comparable to humanity when even somewhat intelligent animals on our planet don't exhibit the same characteristics?
There is also bats who basically navigate the world by pinging sound off things.
Don’t forget microscopic creatures like Tardigrades. Their world is so small that the air around us acts like water.
Don’t forget microscopic creatures like Tardigrades. Their world is so small that the air around us acts like water.
>Justice, for example. I wouldn't want to bet that all intelligent beings would understand the concept of justice, but I wouldn't want to bet against it either.
Justice is a biased concept. It's a biological phenomenon. Most of us are born with justice modules in our brain. Certain people aren't, they're called psychopaths and these people are basically proof about the genetic component of justice.
Justice is simply a set of behaviors that helps you and your tribe survive from an evolutionary perspective. If you robbed and killed people all the time, well that doesn't help with survival does it? So brains evolve justice modules. There are alternative survival strategies that involve behaviors that are unjustified... and your emotions reflect this possible alternative path. One can be emotionally tempted by unjustified behavior and move in that direction when the situation allows for it. It's all preprogrammed...
For PG to talk about justice as possibly universal is like talking about English as possibly universal. Clearly these are biased concepts unique to humanities biological situation. It's unlikely that a frog feels justice simply because the evolutionary pressures to make him feel that way don't exist. Hardly a candidate for even consideration of being universal.
There can be aliens that are highly intelligent but anti-social. Such creatures have little need to develop a biological justice module as part of their intelligence. I would imagine communities of these creatures are only held at equilibrium because of mutually assured destruction. This has certainly been the case for humanity as humanity has multiple modes of operation, justice is just one component, fear of death is another.
Justice is a biased concept. It's a biological phenomenon. Most of us are born with justice modules in our brain. Certain people aren't, they're called psychopaths and these people are basically proof about the genetic component of justice.
Justice is simply a set of behaviors that helps you and your tribe survive from an evolutionary perspective. If you robbed and killed people all the time, well that doesn't help with survival does it? So brains evolve justice modules. There are alternative survival strategies that involve behaviors that are unjustified... and your emotions reflect this possible alternative path. One can be emotionally tempted by unjustified behavior and move in that direction when the situation allows for it. It's all preprogrammed...
For PG to talk about justice as possibly universal is like talking about English as possibly universal. Clearly these are biased concepts unique to humanities biological situation. It's unlikely that a frog feels justice simply because the evolutionary pressures to make him feel that way don't exist. Hardly a candidate for even consideration of being universal.
There can be aliens that are highly intelligent but anti-social. Such creatures have little need to develop a biological justice module as part of their intelligence. I would imagine communities of these creatures are only held at equilibrium because of mutually assured destruction. This has certainly been the case for humanity as humanity has multiple modes of operation, justice is just one component, fear of death is another.
All of our truths are based on biology.
Without our body we cannot see, feel and experience. Something is true when it is useful, predictive to us, to our body, when it allow us to move away from pain and toward pleasure.
If there is no observer and no sensations(feedback) I don’t think we can ever come to any truth.
Without our body we cannot see, feel and experience. Something is true when it is useful, predictive to us, to our body, when it allow us to move away from pain and toward pleasure.
If there is no observer and no sensations(feedback) I don’t think we can ever come to any truth.
Some truths seem to be universal meaning they exist separate from our biology, for example: logic.
Other truths seem inextricably tied to our biology, for example: happiness.
One that is ambiguous is, Justice. To which I say the ambiguity is an illusion. Justice is like happiness. Completely unique to the human experience.
Other truths seem inextricably tied to our biology, for example: happiness.
One that is ambiguous is, Justice. To which I say the ambiguity is an illusion. Justice is like happiness. Completely unique to the human experience.
Can we derive logic without an observer that is embodied, that experience pain and pleasure?
Every experiment we do are motivated by a desired for knowledge (information to avoid pain)
Without that biological framework there is no experiment, the external observer is an illusion.
To me justice is another emergent concept of the human games, a concept that allow to maximise fitness at a larger scale. We keep track of the freeloaders and punish them so we get to a higher total fitness if we force everyone to contribute more or less equally.
Every experiment we do are motivated by a desired for knowledge (information to avoid pain)
Without that biological framework there is no experiment, the external observer is an illusion.
To me justice is another emergent concept of the human games, a concept that allow to maximise fitness at a larger scale. We keep track of the freeloaders and punish them so we get to a higher total fitness if we force everyone to contribute more or less equally.
>Without that biological framework there is no experiment, the external observer is an illusion.
No but we can make a guess. A hypothesis. Our observations seemingly indicate that only humans feel happy and rocks do not. Neither do plants.
But it seems like both humans and plants both obey logic.
Given that biology is required for US and YOU to do an observation, it may very well be that biology is required for observation period.. and nothing exists outside of that. But our observations present us a view that seemingly looks like a reality exists when it is not observed. One is unable to validate either conclusion. Most of us go about our day to day lives assuming the later conclusion. and thus when we assume that later conclusion is true and we look at logic... our observations clearly present to us a dichotomy between logic and happiness. Not all living beings on this planet seem to share it. But logic is universal and we assume it exists even when not observed.
No but we can make a guess. A hypothesis. Our observations seemingly indicate that only humans feel happy and rocks do not. Neither do plants.
But it seems like both humans and plants both obey logic.
Given that biology is required for US and YOU to do an observation, it may very well be that biology is required for observation period.. and nothing exists outside of that. But our observations present us a view that seemingly looks like a reality exists when it is not observed. One is unable to validate either conclusion. Most of us go about our day to day lives assuming the later conclusion. and thus when we assume that later conclusion is true and we look at logic... our observations clearly present to us a dichotomy between logic and happiness. Not all living beings on this planet seem to share it. But logic is universal and we assume it exists even when not observed.
My dog is an intelligent being and he doesn't share our affinity for math. We have to acknowledge that our concept of intelligence is human-centric. What we interpret as knowledge is based on our specific limitations and perceptions. We don't know what intelligence is and won't necessarily know it when we see it.
My dog is pretty dissatisfied when I show him 3 treats and then give him 2, so he has uses for maths, but he can no longer multiply.
Your dog is unlikely to visit other planets searching for other intelligent life
Let's hope then that aliens coming here will be vegan.
We're not intelligent enough yet not to harm others, or to go to other star systems, or even other galaxies. Would we be considered intelligent, or a source of protein?
We're not intelligent enough yet not to harm others, or to go to other star systems, or even other galaxies. Would we be considered intelligent, or a source of protein?
Has your dog ever jumped somewhere and landed where he intended to? Has he ever caught a ball or frisbee that you've thrown?
If so, then he understands basic calculus.
He can't write the equations, but he can solve them.
If so, then he understands basic calculus.
He can't write the equations, but he can solve them.
Many "successful" humans don't know a lot of math or physics either. It seems you only need to know how to subtract and divide.
Why does my dog growl at my other dog when it tries to eat it's food? It seems to understand subtraction at a basic level.
Would aliens use Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory as the foundation of their mathematics?
Anyone else getting a TLS cert for this link with a CN of *.store.yahoo.com?
Every pg essay seems to bring out a cohort of nay-sayers and weirdos.
Maybe there is also a revealed alien truth somewhere in there about the psychological effects of differences in expertise, knowledge, social status, writing skill, etc...
Maybe there is also a revealed alien truth somewhere in there about the psychological effects of differences in expertise, knowledge, social status, writing skill, etc...
That wouldn't be an alien truth, that would be a mundane fact of human psychology.
How would you know aliens don't share the same 'mundane facts'?
It seems entirely possible.
It seems entirely possible.
We could argue about the definitions of "mundane" and "alien" but I've observed the same thing about HN comments and it's not specific to PG essays so that's why I said it is a mundane fact of human psychology.
They very well could, but it is plausible that they do not.
Certain facets of mathematics however, it is not plausible that they do not share.
Certain facets of mathematics however, it is not plausible that they do not share.
[deleted]
SCNR has this guy never heard of https?
The beauty of thinking about other civilizations is it provides a due balance for materialist views, where instead of a universal truth, the question becomes what values and principles would be sufficient for us to co-exist with more (and less) advanced beings without respective reduction to foodstuffs, pets, or slavery.
To a more advanced civilization, we are chimpanzees who are both outwardly intelligent, but also tremendously dangerous, and so on what basis could they establish trust with us, or could we establish trust with a civilization of others? As Graham notes, math is one indicator that we are capable of apprehending the universe around us, but given the infinity of life and its necessary physical conditions of beginning and ending, and evolving in aggregate using tools and principles, it's not sufficient. Maybe one way to ensure trust is to share DNA, so that we become each other and we are all "us" - or, perhaps the Girardian mimetic concept generalizes such that it is better to preserve our differences so that we are not competitors for the same resources, and so that we can co-exist with an obvious other but without an existential threat or intrinsic power struggles.
Are there existing moral or philosophical systems that are suited to this problem? Probably, I'm not a religious scholar, but the golden thread that links them seems pretty consistent in attempting to derive alignment to an external truth. The proto-Christian tribe of Essenes, from whom John the Baptist originates and who was the one who baptized Jesus into what became Christianity (solving a weird bootstrapping problem, imo) espoused the values that became the first Church, so there is a historiographical way of looking at moral systems instead of as dogma. Outside religion, in the search for these values that would be suitable for a community of inhabitants, I've come to suspect this is what freemasonry is about, and while not about aliens, I was impressed by their allegorical emphasis on tools instead of doctrine as the landmarks for discovery.
The essential question to me is, once you have accepted there is an other that is greater, or a place that is elsewhere, does it matter whether it's a dude with a beard, multi-armed flying blue people, or an ineffable oneness? That there is a concievable elsewhere beyond your current limits, there must therefore be some point or idea to align and orient yourself to so as to be able to relate to the other beings who have discovered the same point outside our current perspective.
It's all very meta, but it implies a logical and even rational case for some guidance or alignment to this otherness to navigate our present, and that isn't material. The value of the idea of an "alien" truth is it is a means to reconcile secular rational thinking and moralism with universal, essential, or spiritual values, and that could be a very useful tool.
To a more advanced civilization, we are chimpanzees who are both outwardly intelligent, but also tremendously dangerous, and so on what basis could they establish trust with us, or could we establish trust with a civilization of others? As Graham notes, math is one indicator that we are capable of apprehending the universe around us, but given the infinity of life and its necessary physical conditions of beginning and ending, and evolving in aggregate using tools and principles, it's not sufficient. Maybe one way to ensure trust is to share DNA, so that we become each other and we are all "us" - or, perhaps the Girardian mimetic concept generalizes such that it is better to preserve our differences so that we are not competitors for the same resources, and so that we can co-exist with an obvious other but without an existential threat or intrinsic power struggles.
Are there existing moral or philosophical systems that are suited to this problem? Probably, I'm not a religious scholar, but the golden thread that links them seems pretty consistent in attempting to derive alignment to an external truth. The proto-Christian tribe of Essenes, from whom John the Baptist originates and who was the one who baptized Jesus into what became Christianity (solving a weird bootstrapping problem, imo) espoused the values that became the first Church, so there is a historiographical way of looking at moral systems instead of as dogma. Outside religion, in the search for these values that would be suitable for a community of inhabitants, I've come to suspect this is what freemasonry is about, and while not about aliens, I was impressed by their allegorical emphasis on tools instead of doctrine as the landmarks for discovery.
The essential question to me is, once you have accepted there is an other that is greater, or a place that is elsewhere, does it matter whether it's a dude with a beard, multi-armed flying blue people, or an ineffable oneness? That there is a concievable elsewhere beyond your current limits, there must therefore be some point or idea to align and orient yourself to so as to be able to relate to the other beings who have discovered the same point outside our current perspective.
It's all very meta, but it implies a logical and even rational case for some guidance or alignment to this otherness to navigate our present, and that isn't material. The value of the idea of an "alien" truth is it is a means to reconcile secular rational thinking and moralism with universal, essential, or spiritual values, and that could be a very useful tool.
lol holy shit you guys are a rough crowd
I didn’t realize that the concept of absolute or universal truths was so boring that it needed an “ancient aliens” style rebrand.
Perhaps it’s not that they are boring, but fearful. I can’t recall a single time I mentioned these words in a conversation that weren’t abruptly interrupted with “there is no absolute truth!”. If the rebranding helps us calm down and think about it without fear, it might be worth it.
What did you expect from the idol of the startup scene?
Timely article to prop up OpenAI.
that's the definition of truth. all truths are fixed.
lol tarski
"[when] the inferior scholar hears of Dao, he greatly ridicules it" -laotzu
Why doesn't reader mode work in that webpage?
Whatever happened to the (failing) promises of HTML + CSS ? where I was gonna be able to swap out this CSS for whatever I wanted?
Whatever happened to the (failing) promises of HTML + CSS ? where I was gonna be able to swap out this CSS for whatever I wanted?
benreesman(2)
It makes me slightly sad that a well-read tech icon like PG dabble in writing things which are not only beyond his creative expertise, but also speculative, imaginative & open to wide variety of interpretation, spirituality including.
Aliens may exist as very intelligent species or maybe dumb bacteria. We are discovering the laws of nature ourselves. We don't know enough of the laws of nature, despite the vast strides we have made in the last century. Maybe there are universal truths & representations, like the GUT which all life forms may eventually discover in their notation/formalism. Or maybe the laws of physics will have different implications in different corners of universe or multiverses, and we don't know those too with any degree of certainty.
Sufficiently long timelines of existence doesn't guarantee intelligence of species. Dinosaurs existed for about 140 million year & more, whereas we have stepped on moon in less than 25000 years of evolution. These things are entirely uncharted territory, left best to astronomers who discover life form or make any contact one day
Aliens may exist as very intelligent species or maybe dumb bacteria. We are discovering the laws of nature ourselves. We don't know enough of the laws of nature, despite the vast strides we have made in the last century. Maybe there are universal truths & representations, like the GUT which all life forms may eventually discover in their notation/formalism. Or maybe the laws of physics will have different implications in different corners of universe or multiverses, and we don't know those too with any degree of certainty.
Sufficiently long timelines of existence doesn't guarantee intelligence of species. Dinosaurs existed for about 140 million year & more, whereas we have stepped on moon in less than 25000 years of evolution. These things are entirely uncharted territory, left best to astronomers who discover life form or make any contact one day
That is a work of stunning arrogance and foolishness.
Math is a game we play in our heads that represents a fictionalized ideal version of reality.
An alien intelligence might have realized that two plus two never equals four not because the underlying logic is wrong, but because two does not exist in reality.
The idea that the little game of math we play represents an immutable and universal truth is typical of the overwhelming anthropocentrism of our kind.
Math is a game we play in our heads that represents a fictionalized ideal version of reality.
An alien intelligence might have realized that two plus two never equals four not because the underlying logic is wrong, but because two does not exist in reality.
The idea that the little game of math we play represents an immutable and universal truth is typical of the overwhelming anthropocentrism of our kind.
This is a comment of stunning ignorance.
Just because some alien societies will not mimic our rules of addition, we do know for certain it is possible that other societies can build abstract concepts that are isomorphic to those we have. And many of these concepts, such as addition, are very useful.
Does this guarantee that aliens come up with the same stuff? No. Does it guarantee that if they did, they would these concepts to the same esteem? No. Is there an element of 'truth' here that can be replicated by others? Absolutely
Just because some alien societies will not mimic our rules of addition, we do know for certain it is possible that other societies can build abstract concepts that are isomorphic to those we have. And many of these concepts, such as addition, are very useful.
Does this guarantee that aliens come up with the same stuff? No. Does it guarantee that if they did, they would these concepts to the same esteem? No. Is there an element of 'truth' here that can be replicated by others? Absolutely
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just because we use a model of physics to describe our universe doesn't mean aliens would use the same model.
1 + 1 = 3 (Because some aliens understand what state changes occur in the future and the equation is specific to the singularity of something not the progressive time.)
> We'd probably share Occam's razor. There doesn't seem anything specifically human about any of these ideas.
Except the fact that humans are the only species that we know so far to have thought about them?
Except the fact that humans are the only species that we know so far to have thought about them?
I guess I disagree that math and physics are universal truths.
For maths, I would say 1+1=2 is a pretty universal truth (although it takes a while to get there in the principa mathematica), but didn't we just invent complex numbers because they are useful?
Same goes for physics, the speed of light is the same everywhere, but how quantum mechanics work is still subject to many discussions.
Love to hear some thoughts on this, as claiming a whole field as universal truth is something I'm a little uncomfortable with.
For maths, I would say 1+1=2 is a pretty universal truth (although it takes a while to get there in the principa mathematica), but didn't we just invent complex numbers because they are useful?
Same goes for physics, the speed of light is the same everywhere, but how quantum mechanics work is still subject to many discussions.
Love to hear some thoughts on this, as claiming a whole field as universal truth is something I'm a little uncomfortable with.
I think the argument is mostly that there are universal truths than math and physics describe not that our current level of math and physics are universal truths. So finding an example that we do not understand fully doesn't mean that there aren't truths in other aspects of math and physics. As for things like complex numbers there is an underlying debate that has been around in philosophy of science and math that distinguishes between discovery and invention. Our representation may have been invented but we discovered some thing that works historically and has predictive power.
> because they are useful?
But the usefulness is objective, that is, it is not an arbitrary product of the mind but rather it is dictated by the logic of things once the goal is set, so invention (or discovery) of useful things is more or less unavoidable.
As to quantum mechanics, you are talking about the variety of interpretations which from the practical standpoint are simply different ways of looking at quantum behavior, which, in turn, sometimes leads to different methods of calculation.
But the usefulness is objective, that is, it is not an arbitrary product of the mind but rather it is dictated by the logic of things once the goal is set, so invention (or discovery) of useful things is more or less unavoidable.
As to quantum mechanics, you are talking about the variety of interpretations which from the practical standpoint are simply different ways of looking at quantum behavior, which, in turn, sometimes leads to different methods of calculation.
> But the usefulness is objective, that is, it is not an arbitrary product of the mind but rather it is dictated by the logic of things once the goal is set, so invention (or discovery) of useful things is more or less unavoidable.
It certainly seems like it is objective, and often it probably is, but in a more general sense, any instance of "x 'is' y" very often turns out to be subjective very quickly. Even with "is useful", things get complicated if one explicitly injects the dimension of Time into the question (it is there in the first place implicitly, but is easily overlooked).
It certainly seems like it is objective, and often it probably is, but in a more general sense, any instance of "x 'is' y" very often turns out to be subjective very quickly. Even with "is useful", things get complicated if one explicitly injects the dimension of Time into the question (it is there in the first place implicitly, but is easily overlooked).
I think you have the right idea. Most human truths are contingencies of our evolution and the evolution of life on earth. It's very hard to extrapolate from this to universal and alien truth.
> but didn't we just invent complex numbers because they are useful?
Not any more than we invented natural numbers because they are useful.
There are several ways to naturally derive complex numbers, either from mathematics or from physics.
For one, complex numbers are probably the simplest possible extension of the real numbers in which all real-valued polynomials have roots (for example, x^2 + 1 doesn't have a root if x has to be real). This is the same reason why the non-transcendental irrational numbers were invented (such as sqrt(2) ).
(Incidentally, the transcendental numbers (pi, e) are less justified than the complex numbers from this point of view - any polynomial of any rank whose coefficients are non-transcendental real numbers has roots that are either real non-transcendental numbers, or a complex number whose real and imaginary parts are real non-transcendental numbers )
For a physical explanation, complex numbers are the best way we know of describing wave mechanics (either classical or quantum), and in general periodic phenomena and how they compose.
Not any more than we invented natural numbers because they are useful.
There are several ways to naturally derive complex numbers, either from mathematics or from physics.
For one, complex numbers are probably the simplest possible extension of the real numbers in which all real-valued polynomials have roots (for example, x^2 + 1 doesn't have a root if x has to be real). This is the same reason why the non-transcendental irrational numbers were invented (such as sqrt(2) ).
(Incidentally, the transcendental numbers (pi, e) are less justified than the complex numbers from this point of view - any polynomial of any rank whose coefficients are non-transcendental real numbers has roots that are either real non-transcendental numbers, or a complex number whose real and imaginary parts are real non-transcendental numbers )
For a physical explanation, complex numbers are the best way we know of describing wave mechanics (either classical or quantum), and in general periodic phenomena and how they compose.
I wrote a scifi book in which I wrote 'heaven' as being an alien construct. Somewhere in the universe a tremendously technologically advanced civilization constructed a device which simulates 'heaven' for all people in the universe. Through 'enlightenment' the discoverer is able to bring knowledge of 'heaven' back to their people but in our history how could a figure like Buddha or Jesus post-enlightenment explain aliens and advanced technology. So you end up producing a story at a level of your current day scientific understanding.
Fundamentally your message to humanity post-enlightenment would be the rules on how to get to heaven. Which many world-religions classes go into depth. There are fundamental rules that benefit everyone to follow that wouldn't really be inherently human to follow.
>We'd probably share Occam's razor. There doesn't seem anything specifically human about any of these ideas.
Aliens will also have developed the piano and chess. They are inherent things to discover eventually.
Fundmantally a great way to analyze what the rules are would be impossible to list. Just look at the list of crimes in countries which are so large lawyers dont even know them all. So you need a system that's much more simply. Isn't that system 'karma'.
Fundamentally your message to humanity post-enlightenment would be the rules on how to get to heaven. Which many world-religions classes go into depth. There are fundamental rules that benefit everyone to follow that wouldn't really be inherently human to follow.
>We'd probably share Occam's razor. There doesn't seem anything specifically human about any of these ideas.
Aliens will also have developed the piano and chess. They are inherent things to discover eventually.
Fundmantally a great way to analyze what the rules are would be impossible to list. Just look at the list of crimes in countries which are so large lawyers dont even know them all. So you need a system that's much more simply. Isn't that system 'karma'.
> Aliens will also have developed the piano and chess. They are inherent things to discover eventually.
How could that claim be true? We have highly intelligent beings (i.e., “aliens”) right here on Earth that have not developed these things.
These discussions on aliens are often off the rails from the start because they implicitly begin with the assumption that humans are the only intelligent beings on Earth.
How could that claim be true? We have highly intelligent beings (i.e., “aliens”) right here on Earth that have not developed these things.
These discussions on aliens are often off the rails from the start because they implicitly begin with the assumption that humans are the only intelligent beings on Earth.
>How could that claim be true? We have highly intelligent beings (i.e., “aliens”) right here on Earth that have not developed these things.
Are you using the 'illegal immigration' definition of alien?
>These discussions on aliens are often off the rails from the start because they implicitly begin with the assumption that humans are the only intelligent beings on Earth.
Do please elaborate because I don't share this opinion. Do you believe aliens live amongst us?
Are you using the 'illegal immigration' definition of alien?
>These discussions on aliens are often off the rails from the start because they implicitly begin with the assumption that humans are the only intelligent beings on Earth.
Do please elaborate because I don't share this opinion. Do you believe aliens live amongst us?
What is an alien other than a biological being from another planet? We have biological beings on Earth that share DNA with us but possess wildly different intelligences and cognitive systems. Is it a stretch to use these as examples that aliens may share little in common with us?
>What is an alien other than a biological being from another planet?
Alright, agreed. Which as far as I know we have no known aliens ever discovered.
>We have biological beings on Earth that share DNA with us but possess wildly different intelligences and cognitive systems. Is it a stretch to use these as examples that aliens may share little in common with us?
You're backpedaling pretty hard. You said there are 'highly intelligent beings on earth' besides us. I know of no known examples that fit your claim. Happy to listen.
Alright, agreed. Which as far as I know we have no known aliens ever discovered.
>We have biological beings on Earth that share DNA with us but possess wildly different intelligences and cognitive systems. Is it a stretch to use these as examples that aliens may share little in common with us?
You're backpedaling pretty hard. You said there are 'highly intelligent beings on earth' besides us. I know of no known examples that fit your claim. Happy to listen.
It’s not backpedaling. Both things are true. There are wildly different “intelligences”. Plants, for example. As for highly intelligent, orcas are an example.
And all this relies on some definition of intelligence, which I don’t think we even have a good one for.
And all this relies on some definition of intelligence, which I don’t think we even have a good one for.
We get better by practicing only because of our brain's neuroplasticity, which one might argue, is a mechanism of adaptation, and thus a result of evolution. An intelligent life might have developed other ways of coping with change, and not necessarily through a neuroplastic brain, but for example, through an instant rewiring of the brain that doesn't require any practice.
The same can be said for justice, even though it might seem as a social construct, it's still rooted in our biology (emotions are still "physical" reactions in our body) and so an intelligent life might have developed a different biological system different than that of emotions.