Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#81

Post by nmaleki »

ukj wrote: post #10
beebmam wrote: post #8

A law that doesn't make predictions isn't a law. A law that is not falsifiable isn't a law. It is an unscientific belief. It's truly incredible to me that people, like the person in this video, can speak with such confidence about how, for example from this video, "if we look at an org chart for an organization, and we look at the structure of the products that it produces, we would expect them to basically just be c…

Please spare us from truth-seeking and leave that to the philosophers. In science/engineering we care about instrumentalism, not truth. All models are wrong. Some are useful.

> All models are wrong. Some are useful.

While this may hold true in almost every case. Just as truth is not absolute, neither is "wrongness".

Furthermore, there exists some model which is neither right nor wrong[1]

[1] https://publications.recursion.is "When all contradictions are resolved what will be left is - an unprovable truth"

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#82

Post by ukj »

nmaleki wrote: post #81
ukj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please spare us from truth-seeking and leave that to the philosophers. In science/engineering we care about instrumentalism, not truth. All models are wrong. Some are useful.

> All models are wrong. Some are useful. While this may hold true in almost every case. Just as truth is not absolute, neither is "wrongness". Furthermore, there exists some model which is neither right nor wrong[1] [1] https://publications.recursion.is "When all contradictions are resolved what will be left is - an unprovable truth"

Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom?

Why didn’t you choose dialetheism?

Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Aristotle?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#83

Post by Etherlord87 »

worewood wrote: post #68
mellosouls wrote: post #67

An hour long video with comments turned off? A summary would be useful...

Yeah.. I can understand this block on political videos or other sensitive topics but on this? Well if you can't take the criticism perhaps don't post it on youtube.

It's sad how bad Youtube comments are, but usually some good comments float to the top, and while neither high confidence of a comment author nor high number of likes of the comment give you a guarantee that it's right, often a comment will be a good lead - for example it could link to this HN conversation on the video.

I took a glimpse what people here say about the video and I find too many criticisms to consider it reasonable to spend time watching the video...

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#84

Post by lliamander »

erikerikson wrote: post #58
lliamander wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you general about the point of the article and the validity of Conway's Law, but I have a quibble: > Like many have said in the past, computer science is not really “science” or even engineering. Computer Science is absolutely science, as much as physics is. Science is the ability to make precise predictive models of the world using math. Computer Science provides plenty of those. For example, by knowing…

Outside of the U.S.A. (notably in the U.K.) the computer science department is known as the informatics department. This makes the larger claim that the field's interest is information theory. Consider the information theoretic guarantees of total order broadcast and it's equivalence to consensus. Consider also the relationships between automata and languages, computational complexity theory, the relational calculus.…

You're absolutely right about information being a key part of computer science. I don't really know how to articulate the relationship between "process" and "information" but it makes sense to me to group them together, and I do like the name "informatics" to describe the science.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#85

Post by leoncaet »

krapp wrote: post #66
hahamrfunnyguy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's more like a builder arguing against building codes. A high-quality building can certain be built without them, but sticking to some known formulas makes sure that everyone working on it is able to anticipate what others are going to do. It also makes sure that the building won't collapse, though this aspect doesn't really apply to software. Software has gotten a lot more complicated since the 1990's…

On the other hand, Casey's been working on Handmade Hero for almost a decade, and has what amounts to an overengineered debug room with less actual gameplay complexity than you'd find in any framework tutorial. Meanwhile actual game developers would pick up a framework, use all those abstractions and libraries Casey finds unnecessary and surpass Handmade Hero in an afternoon. There's something to be said for not wast…

He works on HH for about 2 hours per week.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#86

Post by krapp »

leoncaet wrote: post #85
krapp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, Casey's been working on Handmade Hero for almost a decade, and has what amounts to an overengineered debug room with less actual gameplay complexity than you'd find in any framework tutorial. Meanwhile actual game developers would pick up a framework, use all those abstractions and libraries Casey finds unnecessary and surpass Handmade Hero in an afternoon. There's something to be said for not wast…

He works on HH for about 2 hours per week.

That's still far too much time for far too little progress. Six hundred videos and counting, each over an hour in length. What is there to learn except how not to develop a game, much less (as I recall him claiming) a AAA quality game.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#87

Post by nmaleki »

ukj wrote: post #82
nmaleki wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All models are wrong. Some are useful. While this may hold true in almost every case. Just as truth is not absolute, neither is "wrongness". Furthermore, there exists some model which is neither right nor wrong[1] [1] https://publications.recursion.is "When all contradictions are resolved what will be left is - an unprovable truth"

Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom? Why didn’t you choose dialetheism? Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Aristotle? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

https://recursion.is has a running list of quotes, one of those quotes is "True and False" - this is the central idea behind dialetheism and is an integral part to the Recursion Convergence Conjecture. I have already recorded audio for a video on the topic soon to be released on https://recursion.is/youtube

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#89

Post by holyyikes »

Laremere wrote: post #75
holyyikes wrote: post #41

Quoted post unavailable.

I think it's fair to have opinions, but you are overstating your case here - > You could have had an entire career in the video game industry in the amount of time he's managed to produce some pile of crap that doesn't even have a complete gameplay loop. Including taking time to explain concepts, Q+A, and design choices made to educate that are then iterated upon (eg, doing 2d graphics from scratch then moving to 3d)…

He doesn't just work on it on-stream or on video. I remember seeing some video a long time ago where he literally talked about what he was doing with it offline in between videos, so there you go. So much for your point.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#90

Post by ukj »

nmaleki wrote: post #87
ukj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom? Why didn’t you choose dialetheism? Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Aristotle? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

https://recursion.is has a running list of quotes, one of those quotes is "True and False" - this is the central idea behind dialetheism and is an integral part to the Recursion Convergence Conjecture. I have already recorded audio for a video on the topic soon to be released on https://recursion.is/youtube

Let me generalise.

There are systems of reasoning which don’t only concern themselves with Booleans (true and false). There are infinitely many non-Boolean types possible in type theory.

Human constructions/models have many other interesting and desirable qualities/properties beyond “truth” and “falsity”. Mathematicians/Logicians/Computer scientists are deeply interested in understanding those semantic properties.

Recursion is one of those properties studied. It is a foundational concept, not the be all - end all.

Convergence and divergence are another example of interesting semantic properties. They are studied in bifurcation theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram

Whatever your conjecture you are only constructing a lens through which you are interpreting the world.

Post reply on HN