So they overlook the simpler patterns because they pay less rent upfront, even though they are more general and a better investment long-term.
...
And if you use this metaphor to imagine what’s going to happen to a tiny drop of water on a plastic table, you could predict that it will form a ball and refuse to spread out. While the metaphor may only be able to generate very uncertain & imprecise predictions, it’s also more general.
Can you expand on the this thought (“something can give less specific predictions, but be more general”) or reference famous/professional people discussing it? This thought can be very trivial, but it also can be very controversial.
Right now I’m writing a post about “informal simplicity”, “conceptual simplicity”. It discusses simplicity of informal concepts (concepts not giving specific predictions). I make an argument that “informal simplicity” should be very important a priori. But I don’t know if “informal simplicity” was used (at least implicitly) by professional and famous people. Here’s as much as I know: (warning, controversial and potentially inaccurate takes!)
Zeno of Elea made arguments basically equivalent to “calculus should exist” and “theory of computation should exist” (“supertasks are a thing”) using only the basic math.
The success of neural networks is a success of one of the simplest mechanisms: backpropagation and attention. (Even though they can be heavy on math too.) We observed a complicated phenomenon (real neurons), we simplified it… and BOOM!
Arguably, many breakthroughs in early and late science were sealed behind simple considerations (e.g. equivalence principle), not deduced from formal reasoning. Feynman diagram weren’t deduced from some specific math, they came from the desire to simplify.
Some fields “simplify each other” in some way. Physics “simplifies” math (via physical intuitions). Computability theory “simplifies” math (by limiting it to things which can be done by series of steps). Rationality “simplifies” philosophy (by connecting it to practical concerns) and science.
To learn flying, Wright brothers had to analyze “simple” considerations.
Eliezer Yudkowsky influenced many people with very “simple” arguments. Rational community as a whole is a “simplified” approach to philosophy and science (to a degree).
The possibility of a logical decision theory can be deduced from simple informal considerations.
Judging by the famous video interview, Richard Feynman likes to think about simple informal descriptions of physical processes. And maybe Feynman talked about “less precise, but more general” idea? Maybe he said that epicycles were more precise, but a heliocentric model was better anyway? I couldn’t find it.
...
Can you expand on the this thought (“something can give less specific predictions, but be more general”) or reference famous/professional people discussing it? This thought can be very trivial, but it also can be very controversial.
Right now I’m writing a post about “informal simplicity”, “conceptual simplicity”. It discusses simplicity of informal concepts (concepts not giving specific predictions). I make an argument that “informal simplicity” should be very important a priori. But I don’t know if “informal simplicity” was used (at least implicitly) by professional and famous people. Here’s as much as I know: (warning, controversial and potentially inaccurate takes!)
Zeno of Elea made arguments basically equivalent to “calculus should exist” and “theory of computation should exist” (“supertasks are a thing”) using only the basic math.
The success of neural networks is a success of one of the simplest mechanisms: backpropagation and attention. (Even though they can be heavy on math too.) We observed a complicated phenomenon (real neurons), we simplified it… and BOOM!
Arguably, many breakthroughs in early and late science were sealed behind simple considerations (e.g. equivalence principle), not deduced from formal reasoning. Feynman diagram weren’t deduced from some specific math, they came from the desire to simplify.
Some fields “simplify each other” in some way. Physics “simplifies” math (via physical intuitions). Computability theory “simplifies” math (by limiting it to things which can be done by series of steps). Rationality “simplifies” philosophy (by connecting it to practical concerns) and science.
To learn flying, Wright brothers had to analyze “simple” considerations.
Eliezer Yudkowsky influenced many people with very “simple” arguments. Rational community as a whole is a “simplified” approach to philosophy and science (to a degree).
The possibility of a logical decision theory can be deduced from simple informal considerations.
Albert Einstein used simple thought experiments.
Judging by the famous video interview, Richard Feynman likes to think about simple informal descriptions of physical processes. And maybe Feynman talked about “less precise, but more general” idea? Maybe he said that epicycles were more precise, but a heliocentric model was better anyway? I couldn’t find it.
Terry Tao occasionally likes to simplify things. (e.g. P=NP and multiple choice exams, Quantum mechanics and Tomb Raider, Special relativity and Middle-Earth and Calculus as “special deals”). Is there more?
Some famous scientists weren’t shying away from philosophy (e.g. Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr?, Erwin Schrödinger).
Please, share any thoughts or information relevant to this, if you have any! It’s OK if you write your own speculations/frames.