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.
Polanyi’s Paradox
31–40 of 48 posts
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#32Show 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
#33Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#34I 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.
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
#35https://i.imgur.com/tp3eLb4.png
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo84...
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#36Earlier 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.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#37Poliany was central to my social science master degree thesis. How do you transfer tacit knowledge across international cultural borders?
What answer did you find?
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#38I 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…
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#39Earlier 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.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#40I 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.