The Only Unbreakable Law [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#91

Post by nmaleki » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 12:43 PM UTC

ukj wrote: post #90

nmaleki wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Re…

Yes. I fully agree with all of these points.

Why do you point these specific ideas out? I do not, yet, understand the purpose behind your words

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#92

Post by Ygg2 » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 12:46 PM UTC

holyyikes wrote: post #45

jdougan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With both Casey and Jon Blow I find that if I mentally prefix what they say with "When developing AAA games..." then they are almost always right. Much of it doesn't transfer far outside that domain.

What are you talking about? Neither one of them has ever shipped a AAA game.

I think it's charitable to read that as shipped a relatively performant game.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#93

Post by ukj » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

nmaleki wrote: post #91

ukj wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Re…

Yes. I fully agree with all of these points. Why do you point these specific ideas out? I do not, yet, understand the purpose behind your words

Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you.

From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough.

In particular - the purpose behind my words is to understand why you are constraining thought/expression to merely recursive convergence and to the detriment of recursive divergence.

Why the arbitrary specificity?

In general - I don’t understand the purpose of your conjecture either.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#94

Post by squeegmeister » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 1:58 PM UTC

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…

Doesn't Conway's law make predictions and isn't it falsifiable? You pointed it out yourself "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 collapses of each other [i.e. a homomorphism]"

You could validate these claims by looking at org charts across various companies and looking at their software architecture and come up with some measure for how closely they resemble each other

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#95

Post by nmaleki » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 2:31 PM UTC

ukj wrote: post #93

nmaleki wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I fully agree with all of these points. Why do you point these specific ideas out? I do not, yet, understand the purpose behind your words

Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you. From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough. In particular - the purpose behind my words is to understand why you are constraining thought/expression to merely recursive convergence and to the detriment of recursive divergence. Why the…

The insight you have given me today amazes me.

My original paper was not titled Recursion "Convergence" Conjecture, it was titled "Quantum Recursion Postulate". I later realized I was incorrectly conflating popular use of the word "quantum" with "superposition". So, I re-titled my paper.

This felt like a good decision. Convergence is one of the central ideas to the paper-I want others to disprove the paper to converge on a solution. The focus of my paper was not quantum mechanics, nor was the paper describing only a small system. A understandable mistake for someone who has no formal physics background, and has only conversed with those who do.

Of course, this re-titling had the now obvious effect that I lost the diverging aspect of the paper. To further illustrate how I managed to damage the original meaning behind the paper, I will show you perhaps the only proof I have that my conjecture also includes divergence: "The more information considered, the more likely the solution"[1] "Once all is explained, there will always be more perspectives you can attempt to explain that which is already explained from. There will always be new layers to explain previous layers with. Seeking these new layers is what is important, as you can use them to help others understand what you already do. These others, which may want explanations, will stem from these new layers and only understand these new layers."[2]

Looks like I need to change one of my scripts (which I already recorded the audio for >.>) and re-title my paper to the "Recursion Conjecture". Thank you!

[2] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/It+is+what+it+is

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#96

Post by ukj » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

nmaleki wrote: post #95

ukj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you. From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough. In particular - the purpose behind my words is to understand why you are constraining thought/expression to merely recursive convergence and to the detriment of recursive divergence. Why the…

The insight you have given me today amazes me. My original paper was not titled Recursion "Convergence" Conjecture, it was titled "Quantum Recursion Postulate". I later realized I was incorrectly conflating popular use of the word "quantum" with "superposition". So, I re-titled my paper. This felt like a good decision. Convergence is one of the central ideas to the paper-I want others to disprove the paper to converg…

Well, I am glad you are finding my commentary helpful but I am still no closer to understanding the reasons for your arbitrary choices.

Why is it a “recursion conjecture”?

Why isn’t it a “Corecursion conjecture”?

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#97

Post by nmaleki » Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 10:33 PM UTC

ukj wrote: post #96

nmaleki wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insight you have given me today amazes me. My original paper was not titled Recursion "Convergence" Conjecture, it was titled "Quantum Recursion Postulate". I later realized I was incorrectly conflating popular use of the word "quantum" with "superposition". So, I re-titled my paper. This felt like a good decision. Convergence is one of the central ideas to the paper-I want others to disprove the paper to converg…

Well, I am glad you are finding my commentary helpful but I am still no closer to understanding the reasons for your arbitrary choices. Why is it a “recursion conjecture”? Why isn’t it a “Corecursion conjecture”?

https://recursioncorecursion.is does not have the same marketing effect that https://recursion.is does :P

Additionally, I admit that I was not aware of corecursion prior to this conversation. I have been referring to the two as the same concept this entire time. I do not have access to all that is knowable. I did not go to the same universities/* you did that taught this concept. To further illustrate this, "corecursion" has About 18,100 results on Google. "Recursion" has About 20,900,000 results. All YouTube videos on the subject have sub-1k views; since your comment, I have watched many of these videos.

I am prepared to say that corecursion is an integral part to the conjecture; just as important as recursion.

Lastly, it is my understanding that they are, in a way, each other. Ask yourself how you define both and then ask yourself what is the major difference between the two. Are you certain that your definition of both is absolute? Could it be that one could stem from the other in some case? I'll give you a hint, I am being entirely rhetorical. They do stem from one another. Where this stemming-process has *no origin*[3] in an *infinite* system - neither idea can be seen as the "top-level" idea. They are both crucial.

This conclusion may bother you, and I will release a more rigorous argument soon. Corecursion will be a/the topic of one/all of my future videos.

PS: This conversation allowed me to think I understand how type theory integrates with mathematics, to my own personal plague of not internally using concepts I don't think I fully understand

[3] https://notes.recursion.is/Philosophy/Origin

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#98

Post by holyyikes » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 5:08 AM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #92

holyyikes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Neither one of them has ever shipped a AAA game.

I think it's charitable to read that as shipped a relatively performant game.

Actually the funny thing is that Braid's CPU usage was always kind of high for what it was doing. Not sure about The Witness.

The emperor definitely doesn't have any clothes though when it comes to either one of them.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#99

Post by holyyikes » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #72

miltondts wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SOLID is over used and over-stated, but they were invented to stop certain set of problems. The problem is, when was it ever shown they solve any problem? Where are the measurements showing less dev time or less bugs or better performance? Where even is an algorithm to show your software is SOLID? People can't even agree on what those mean.

SOLID is for long-term development and use software. Games are developed during a relatively short time, and then released, and then not changed very much. The next game is developed independently, as a separate project and effort. SOLID is meant to alleviate continous development where changes and new features are constantly needed. Game development does not easily fit in this mold.

Tell that to World of Warcraft. Really is hilarious just how goddamned clueless most of the comments in this thread are.

Re: The Only Unbreakable Law [video]

#100

Post by holyyikes » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 5:12 AM UTC

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 not true. He works on it offline, and honestly, even if he did only work on it 2 hours per week, it's STILL not as far along as it should be by now for a supposed game development "guru." You got hoodwinked.