I’m bad at math. But I know a topic where you could formulate my ideas using math. I could try to formulate them mathematically with someone’s help.
I can give a very abstract example. It’s probably oversimplified (in a wrong way) and bad, but here it is:
You got three sets, A {9, 1} and B {5, −3} and C {4, 4}. You want to learn something about the sets. Or maybe you want to explain why they’re ordered A > C > B in your data. You make orders of those sets using some (arbitrary) rules. For example:
A {9} > B {5} > C {4}. This order is based on choosing the largest element.
A {10} > C {8} > B {2}. This order is based on adding elements.
A {10} > C {8} > B {5}. This order is based on this: you add the elements if the number grows bigger, you choose the largest element otherwise. It’s a merge of the previous 2 orders.
If you want to predict A > C > B, you also may order the orders above:
(2) > (3) > (1). This order is based on predictive power (mostly) and complexity.
(2) > (1) > (3). This order is based on predictive power and complexity (complexity gives a bigger penalty).
(3) > (2) > (1). This order is based on how large the numbers in the orders are.
This example is likely useless out of context. But you read the post: so, if there’s something you haven’t understood just because it was confusing without numbers, then this example should clarify something to you. For example, it may clarify what my post misses to be understandable/open to specific feedback.
If you’d like to get some more concrete feedback from the community here, I’d recommend phrasing your ideas more precisely by using some common mathematical terminology, e.g. talking about sets, sequences, etc.
“No math, no feedback” if this is an irrational requirement it’s gonna put people at risk. Do you think there isn’t any other way to share/evaluate ideas? For example, here’re some notions:
On some level our thoughts do consist of biases. See “synaptic weight”. My idea says that “biases” exist on (almost) all levels of thinking and those biases are simple enough/interpretable enough. Also it says that some “high-level thinking” or “high-level knowledge” can be modeled by simple enough biases.
You could compare my theory to other theories. To Shard Theory, for example. I mean, just to make a “map” of all theories: where each theory lies relative to the others. Shard Theory says that value formation happens through complex enough negotiation games between complex enough objects (shards). My theory says that all cognition happens because of a simpler process between simpler objects.
I think it would be simply irrational to abstain from having any opinions about those notions. Do you believe there’s something simpler (and more powerful) than Shard Theory? Do you believe that human thinking and concepts are intrinsically complex and (usually) impossible to simplify? Etc.
A rational thing would be to say your opinions about this and say what could affect those opinions. You already said about math, but there should be some other things too. Simply hearing some possibilities you haven’t considered (even without math) should have at least a small effect on your estimates.
I’m bad at math. But I know a topic where you could formulate my ideas using math. I could try to formulate them mathematically with someone’s help.
I can give a very abstract example. It’s probably oversimplified (in a wrong way) and bad, but here it is:
You got three sets, A {9, 1} and B {5, −3} and C {4, 4}. You want to learn something about the sets. Or maybe you want to explain why they’re ordered A > C > B in your data. You make orders of those sets using some (arbitrary) rules. For example:
A {9} > B {5} > C {4}. This order is based on choosing the largest element.
A {10} > C {8} > B {2}. This order is based on adding elements.
A {10} > C {8} > B {5}. This order is based on this: you add the elements if the number grows bigger, you choose the largest element otherwise. It’s a merge of the previous 2 orders.
If you want to predict A > C > B, you also may order the orders above:
(2) > (3) > (1). This order is based on predictive power (mostly) and complexity.
(2) > (1) > (3). This order is based on predictive power and complexity (complexity gives a bigger penalty).
(3) > (2) > (1). This order is based on how large the numbers in the orders are.
This example is likely useless out of context. But you read the post: so, if there’s something you haven’t understood just because it was confusing without numbers, then this example should clarify something to you. For example, it may clarify what my post misses to be understandable/open to specific feedback.
“No math, no feedback” if this is an irrational requirement it’s gonna put people at risk. Do you think there isn’t any other way to share/evaluate ideas? For example, here’re some notions:
On some level our thoughts do consist of biases. See “synaptic weight”. My idea says that “biases” exist on (almost) all levels of thinking and those biases are simple enough/interpretable enough. Also it says that some “high-level thinking” or “high-level knowledge” can be modeled by simple enough biases.
You could compare my theory to other theories. To Shard Theory, for example. I mean, just to make a “map” of all theories: where each theory lies relative to the others. Shard Theory says that value formation happens through complex enough negotiation games between complex enough objects (shards). My theory says that all cognition happens because of a simpler process between simpler objects.
I think it would be simply irrational to abstain from having any opinions about those notions. Do you believe there’s something simpler (and more powerful) than Shard Theory? Do you believe that human thinking and concepts are intrinsically complex and (usually) impossible to simplify? Etc.
A rational thing would be to say your opinions about this and say what could affect those opinions. You already said about math, but there should be some other things too. Simply hearing some possibilities you haven’t considered (even without math) should have at least a small effect on your estimates.