📚 Quinn's Highlights

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

How Measurability/Mathematical Bias Limits the Scope of Scientific Inquiry and Human Discovery Transcript: Speaker 1 So there's this old paper from the, I think, 1960s by Eugene Vigner, the Nobel Prize physicist. It's called something like, on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. The fun paper, and he's like, there's no good reason why mathematics should work as well as it does. And there's no good reason why there should be a tool that allows humans to predict things as well as math does. There's no good reason. It's kind of nuts. And we should all just be grateful. And he says some other things, but he's basically just kind of being all about how great mathematics is and how there's no good reason why it should be. And it's pretty cool that it does work so well. I think that there's a counter to that, which is that not everything is that easily described that mathematics. And there's lots of things for which mathematics is not that effective at describing. And it's actually just the things that were well described or easily described by mathematics are the things that were discovered using mathematical tools. They're the things that lend themselves that were amenable to mathematical inquiry. And a lot of the things that we're interested in terms of social science and cognitive science and the related philosophical inquiry are things that are much less tangible in terms Of this kind of specification. And you can see it like in a physics equation, right, a physical theory, whether it's about mass or electricity or something else, right, you have a theory about how things work. And then you can write out equations. And all the terms in the equations have units. And they are all directly related to the things that are measurable. The theories are directly about relationships between things that are measured. And in social theories and cognitive theories, so often our theories are about relating constructs. And then we have proxy measurements, but the theory isn't about the relationship between the proxy measures. The theory is about the constructs and the relationships between the constructs that are social in nature, that are cognitive in nature, but aren't the things that are being measured. And so there's this gap. And I don't know the extent to which that gap can be overcome.

Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

Perspective on Managing Different Projects: Cultivating a Garden v.s. Hacking Away in a Mine Summary: A friend suggested thinking of my projects as a garden, where some ideas will flourish while others won't. It's less predictable but more enjoyable than physically laboring in the mines. Transcript: Speaker 1 I remember one point when I was pretty stressed out, and I was saying to my wife, oh my gosh, I've got all these different projects, and I have to work on this one, and I have to work on that One. I have to go to work in the mines. I have to go chip away at this project. And it might work out, it might not work out. And she said to me, you should think of all your projects as more of a gartan. You're planting lots of ideas. Some of them will come up, some of them won't. That's a little unpredictable. But you should think of it that way rather than going down with your hard hat and your pick and toiling away in the pit to find the seam of truth.

Glen Weyl & Cris Moore on Plurality, Governance, and Decentralized Society

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

The Problem of Scale Clash in Human Collaboration Summary: The problem goes beyond ideal scale of humanity. Different things we want involve different scales. Science works on a huge scale for problems like climate change while other things work on medium or small scales. There is a clash of different scales and no optimal scale. The big scales tend to win and squash out the small scales. However, over long time scales, these complex systems tend to implode. It's about a dynamic balance where different forces coexist. How do we handle this in light of global coordination, bioregional organization, and personal relationships at the neighborhood level? Transcript: Speaker 2 I think the problem is even worse than what you're describing I'm going to try to pessimize what you said I mean when you ask me a question like have we gone past the ideal scale of humanity That implies that there is an ideal scale that we could plausibly hit if we could somehow convince people to scale back. For me the real worry is there's no ideal scale of humanity because different things we want to be involved in demand different scales science works really big good on a huge scale solving Problems like climate change our massive scale problems that everyone has to get together on and then there are other things that work at medium or small scales and there's just this Unsolvable scale clash my real worry is that different parts of us and our needs call us to different scales and there is not an optimal scale and so I have to participate in these different Scales or in tension with each other and also the big scales tend to win because they get really powerful and so they squash out the small scales. Speaker 3 Over short time scales though right because over long time scales those like you know this is the Bob May will a complex system large complex system be stable question it's like at some Point those things tend to implode so it's not about like an equilibrium so much as it is about a a dynamic balance or a zone at which these different forces are able to coexist how do you Deal with all of this in light of both the need for global coordination and bioregional organization and neighborhood level personal relationships etc.

Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

...catch up on these, and many more highlights

Readwise.

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

LEARN

EXPLORE

CONTACT