Live data from Hacker News

Polanyi’s Paradox

en.wikipedia.org

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#31
post #29
post #22

I don't understand why this is a paradox. Isn't it just obvious that no system can contain a complete model of itself? That would be an infinite regress and hence would require infinite information.

Humans don't need to self-contain an entire model of a human in their brain. Multiple humans can come together and write disparate information down, for example.

Humans are also pretty lousy at predicting how other human brains will react, though. I don't see how that's an example of the Paradox. With a woefully incomplete model, obviously you'll get inaccurate predictions.

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#32
My most important lesson in working with clients as a programmer, is that asking them how they want their program to work is like asking a native speaker to tell you the rules of grammar in their language. They have often lived with the rules of how their business process works for so long, it is intuitive, and no longer available to their conscious understanding, if it ever was.

Show them a scenario, though ("X, Y, and Z happen, so the program does A and B") and they can usually immediately tell you if that's the wrong or right thing for the program to do.

I have the impression that programmers, as a group, are mostly not great at understanding this, and it is a source of frustration for many of us when we program exactly what they told us to, and then it's "wrong". It is wrong. Like a linguist talking to a native speaker of another language, you often have to ask them about scenarios and piece together the actual business rules yourself.

The worst part is when the customer _thinks_ they know the rules, and then don't (consciously), and you have to help them through that cognitive dissonance of realizing that the business rules they "know" aren't actually the same as the ones they know.

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#34
post #22

I don't understand why this is a paradox. Isn't it just obvious that no system can contain a complete model of itself? That would be an infinite regress and hence would require infinite information.

What does it mean for a system to contain a complete model of itself?

If I can fit all the firmware, schematics and silicon mask layouts of a laptop on that laptop's disk, in what sense does it not contain a complete model?

Concretely, consider that the CAD files describing a terabyte of flash are less than a terabyte, because most parts are repeated in a grid. And you can add more terabytes without increasing the size of the model noticeably. So the storage capacity of a system isn't limited to the descriptive complexity of the system. It's probably O(log N) with a huge constant. So you can have as much disk space as you like to store a model.

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#36
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human contains code that can recreate a complete model of that human.... Maybe you're saying that a human can't fit into a human? I agree it's not a paradox, but not for the reasons you seem to be implying.

> A human contains code that can recreate a complete model of that human That's true, but irrelevant. We're talking about modeling a system here, not reproducing one. Those are not the same thing.

Sufficiently advanced modeling is indistinguishable from reproduction.

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#37
post #3

Poliany was central to my social science master degree thesis. How do you transfer tacit knowledge across international cultural borders?

I would think by working together face-to-face. Learning by doing from a "master" knowing his stuff. Like an apprenticeship.

What answer did you find?

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#38
post #34
post #22

I don't understand why this is a paradox. Isn't it just obvious that no system can contain a complete model of itself? That would be an infinite regress and hence would require infinite information.

What does it mean for a system to contain a complete model of itself? If I can fit all the firmware, schematics and silicon mask layouts of a laptop on that laptop's disk, in what sense does it not contain a complete model? Concretely, consider that the CAD files describing a terabyte of flash are less than a terabyte, because most parts are repeated in a grid. And you can add more terabytes without increasing the si…

My understanding: You are containing the 'plan' or instructions to recreate or describe the system, but not the system itself. The system contains more information than what the plan can actually describe, even if you are storing duplicates in such a way as to 'reduce' it. Your plan won't be able to store, for example, the information conveyed to the nerves by touching the laptop, you may have a description, but it will only ever be a description.

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#39
post #36
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A human contains code that can recreate a complete model of that human That's true, but irrelevant. We're talking about modeling a system here, not reproducing one. Those are not the same thing.

Sufficiently advanced modeling is indistinguishable from reproduction.

Wouldn't that be more like, infinitely advanced modeling is indistinguishable from reproduction?

Re: Polanyi’s Paradox

#40
post #22

I don't understand why this is a paradox. Isn't it just obvious that no system can contain a complete model of itself? That would be an infinite regress and hence would require infinite information.

A human contains code that can recreate a complete model of that human.... Maybe you're saying that a human can't fit into a human? I agree it's not a paradox, but not for the reasons you seem to be implying.

DNA does not encode a complete model of the human that has the DNA, it encodes a bunch of potential clones of that human. This is an abstract, incomplete model. To encode a complete model you would need a complete physical measurement of this particular human as a physical system. But there is a theorem by Thomas Breuer that no physical system can contain a complete measurement of its own state.
Post reply on HN