A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
Layers of Information Continually Accumulate *Within* Objects Over Time
Summary:
Information can be shared between objects as evidence of a common history, indicating that objects are deeply rooted in time.
As the biosphere has evolved, it has increased the layers of information processing and abstraction, resulting in the generation of objects that are deeper in time. Consequently, some features of these objects appear less physical and more abstract.
Each individual accumulates information over time, making parts of them brand new and parts billions of years old.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And so information we talked about has a sort of interesting property that seems very abstract. And it seems to be that information can move between objects, like we're speaking the same language, but when you can share information between objects like you and I speaking, what That is is evidence of a common history. These things that we call information and abstractions, I think, are just evidence that these objects are actually deep in time. So things look more abstract, the deeper and timely are. And it's one of the reasons I think that as the biosphere has evolved over time, it's increased the layers of information processing and abstraction that it's built. But really what it is is you're generating these objects that are deeper and deeper in time. And so some of their features look less and less physical because they're not physical now, they're physical in the structure that's extended in time.
Speaker 2
You have a lovely line in one of your papers where you say that each of us are our own age, but in many ways, we're thousands and thousands of years old because we have accumulated all that Information instead of genes to be who we are today.
Speaker 1
That's right. So parts of you are brand new. And parts of us are all brand new from this conversation because we've exchanged information and generated new structures. Parts of us are billions of years old.
Big Ideas — Time
Simplifying Complexity
The Golden Rule Doesn't Account for Other's Preferences and Interests
The Golden Rule fails to consider individual differences, particularly in power dynamics. It assumes treating others as we want to be treated is ethical, but ignores the possibility that they may have different preferences based on their unique characteristics and circumstances.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The golden rule does not adequately take into account these differences, especially of power. People commonly say, why is it ethical to treat others as we would want to be treated? They may be different than us and may want to be treated differently.
The Golden Rule
In Good We Trust
Prediction Markets Are Built on the Principle of Adverserial Engagement
Transcript:
Speaker 2
There the first is what you're describing is precisely the reason why i am a bit of a skeptic of prediction markets not to say that they don't have a role but i don't think that they are nearly The solution that many believe they are and it's because they set us up in an adversarial relationship with regards to determining the truth it's not at all the say i don't think incentives Have a role or that it isn't worth a listening information for me i believe in all those things but the notion that the way that we should do it is betting against each other so that we want Everyone else to be as wrong as possible so we can be right and we want to get like one big payoff for like the person who's most right and anything that can be like too easily analogized To some sort of like dick measuring contest is not something that like excites me as a mechanism for like coming to good social outcomes and i think that prediction markets have an important Element of that
Glen Weyl & Cris Moore on Plurality, Governance, and Decentralized Society