Category: Science

Wordle and the Hard Problem of Philosophy

Mark Davis2 Comments

I occasionally do Wordles at the New York Times. If you are not familiar, the game is very simple. You have six chances to guess a five-letter word. When you make a guess, letters that are in the correct position turn green. Letters that are in the word but in the wrong position turn yellow. The mental process for solving them is best optimized by choosing a word initially that has high-frequency English letters, like “notes,” and then proceeding from there. At some point in the guessing process, one is confronted with anchoring known letters and trying to remember words that might fit the sequence. There is a handy virtual keyboard displayed below the word matrix that shows you the letters in black, yellow, green, and gray that you have tried, that are required, that are fit to position, and that remain untested, respectively. After a bit, you start to apply little algorithms and exclusionary rules to the process: What if I anchor an S at the beginning? There are no five-letter words that end in “yi” in English, etc. There is a feeling of working through these mental strategies and even a feeling of green and yellow as signposts along the way.

I decided this morning to write the simplest one-line Wordle helper I could and solved the puzzle in two guesses:

Sorry for the spoiler if you haven’t gotten to it yet! Here’s what I needed to do the job: a five letter word list for English and a word frequency list for English. I could have derived the first from the second but found the first first, here. The second required I log into Kaggle to get a good CSV searchable list.… Read the rest

Time at Work

Mark DavisLeave a comment

Time is a strange concept according to several strains of science and related philosophical concerns. We have this everyday medium-macroscopic set of ideas about how there is an undiscovered country of the future, a now we are experiencing, and a past that we remember or model based on accumulated historical facts. When we venture into extensions of conceptual ideas like an infinite past or sequenced events we deploy reasoning about what their properties might be by excluding contradictory compositions of properties and using other kinds of limiting semantics to constrain a mental model of those concepts.

But that isn’t the weirder stuff. The weirder stuff is the result of a collision of measurement and scientific theory.

Take, for instance, the oft-described reversibility of Newtonian physics. We have an equation for an object’s motion that can be run backward in time. But entropy in large ensembles of things in motion is not reversible because of some odd property of energy dissipation into the environment that arises because of micro-interactions. Some say this creates an “arrow of time” in the face of these reversible equations.

But this is an odd way of characterizing mathematical statements that represent the uniformity of physical interactions. The idea of “reversibility” is just a matter of a computational representation of processes that do always flow forward in time. Running t from 0 to -∞ in an equation has no real relationship to any physical phenomena. So the reversibility of mathematical forms is just an interesting fact.

We can bind up space and time, as well, which also provokes feelings of incongruity when we start to talk about gravitational effects on relative elapsed time, or relative speed effects.… Read the rest

A Learning Smorgasbord

Mark DavisLeave a comment

Compliments of a discovery by Futurism, the paper The Autodidactic Universe by a smorgasbord of contemporary science and technology thinkers caught my attention for several reasons. First was Jaron Lanier as a co-author. I knew Jaron’s dad, Ellery, when I was a researcher at NMSU’s now defunct Computing Research Laboratory. Ellery had returned to school to get his psychology PhD during retirement. In an odd coincidence, my brother had also rented a trailer next to the geodesic dome Jaron helped design and Ellery lived after my brother became emancipated in his teens. Ellery may have been his landlord, but I am not certain of that.

The paper is an odd piece of kit that I read over two days in fits and spurts with intervening power lifting interludes (I recently maxed out my Bowflex and am considering next steps!). It initially has the feel of physicists trying to reach into machine learning as if the domain specialists clearly missed something that the hardcore physical scientists have known all along. But that concern dissipated fairly quickly and the paper settled into showing isomorphisms between various physical theories and the state evolution of neural networks. OK, no big deal. Perhaps they were taken by the realization that the mathematics of tensors was a useful way to describe network matrices and gradient descent learning. They then riffed on that and looked at the broader similarities between the temporal evolution of learning and quantum field theory, approaches to quantum gravity, and cosmological ideas.

The paper, being a smorgasbord, then investigates the time evolution of graphs using a lens of graph theory. The core realization, as I gleaned it, is that there are more complex graphs (visually as well as based on the diversity of connectivity within the graph) and pointlessly uniform or empty ones.… Read the rest

One Shot, Few Shot, Radical Shot

Mark Davis1 Comment

Exunoplura is back up after a sad excursion through the challenges of hosting providers. To be blunt, they mostly suck. Between systems that just don’t work right (SSL certificate provisioning in this case) and bad to counterproductive support experiences, it’s enough to make one want to host it oneself. But hosting is mostly, as they say of war, long boring periods punctuated by moments of terror as things go frustratingly sideways. But we are back up again after two hosting provider side-trips!

Honestly, I’d like to see an AI agent effectively navigate through these technological challenges. Where even human performance is fleeting and imperfect, the notion that an AI could learn how to deal with the uncertain corners of the process strikes me as currently unthinkable. But there are some interesting recent developments worth noting and discussing in the journey towards what is named “general AI” or a framework that is as flexible as people can be, rather than narrowly tied to a specific task like visually inspecting welds or answering a few questions about weather, music, and so forth.

First, there is the work by the OpenAI folks on massive language models being tested against one-shot or few-shot learning problems. In each of these learning problems, the number of presentations of the training data cases is limited, rather than presenting huge numbers of exemplars and “fine tuning” the response of the model. What is a language model? Well, it varies across different approaches, but typically is a weighted context of words of varying length, with the weights reflecting the probabilities of those words in those contexts over a massive collection of text corpora. For the OpenAI model, GPT-3, the total number of parameters (words/contexts and their counts) is an astonishing 175 billion using 45 Tb of text to train the model.… Read the rest

The Abnormal Normal

Mark DavisLeave a comment

Another day, another COVID-19 conspiracy theory making the rounds. First there was the Chinese bioweapons idea, then the 5G radiation theory that led to tower vandalism, and now the Plandemic video. Washington Post covers the latter while complaining that tech companies are incompetently ineffectual in stopping the spread of these mind viruses that accompany the biological ones. Meanwhile, a scientist who appears in the video is reviewed and debunked in AAAS Science based on materials she provided them. I’m still interested in these “sequences” in the Pacific Ocean. I’ve spent some time in there and may need to again.

The WaPo article ends with a suggestion that we all need to be more skeptical of dumb shit, though I’m guessing that that message will probably not reach the majority of believers or propagators of Plandemic-style conspiracy thinking. So it goes with all the other magical nonsense that percolates through our ordinary lives, confined as they are to only flights of fancy and hopeful aspirations for a better world.

Broadly, though, it does appear that susceptibility to conspiracy theories correlates with certain mental traits that linger at the edge of mental illnesses. Evita March and Jordan Springer got 230 mostly undergraduate students to answer online questionnaires that polled them on mental traits of schizotypy, Machiavellianism, trait narcissism, and trait psychopathy. They also evaluated their belief in odd/magical ideas. Their paper, Belief in conspiracy theories: The predictive role of schizotypy, Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy, shows significant correlations with belief in conspiracies. Interestingly, they suggest that the urge to manipulate others in Machiavellianism and psychopathy may, in turn, lead to an innate fear of being manipulated oneself.

Mental illness and certain psychological traits have always been a bit of an evolutionary mystery.… Read the rest

A Most Porous Barrier

Mark Davis2 Comments

Whenever there is a scientific—or even a quasi-scientific—theory invented, there are those who take an expansive view of the theory, broadly applying it to other areas of thought. This is perhaps inherent in the metaphorical nature of these kinds of thought patterns. Thus we see Darwinian theory influenced by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of economic optimization. Then we get Spencer’s Social Darwinism arising from Darwin. And E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology leads to evolutionary psychology, immediately following an activist’s  pitcher of ice water.

The is-ought barrier tends towards porousness, allowing the smuggling of insights and metaphors lifted from the natural world as explanatory footwork for our complex social and political interactions. After all, we are as natural as we are social. But at the same time, we know that science is best when it is tentative and subject to infernal levels of revision and reconsideration. Decisions about social policy derived from science, and especially those that have significant human impact, should be cushioned by a tentative level of trust as well.

E.O. Wilson’s most recent book, Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies, is a continuation of his late conversion to what is now referred to as “multi-level selection,” where natural selection is believed to operate at multiple levels, from genes to whole societies. It remains a controversial theory that has been under development and under siege since Darwin’s time, when the mechanism of inheritance was not understood.

The book is brief and does not provide much, if any, new material since his Social Conquest of Earth, which was significantly denser and contained notes derived from his controversial 2010 Nature paper that called into question whether kin selection was overstated as a gene-level explanation of altruism and sacrifice within eusocial species.… Read the rest

Metaphors as Bridges to the Future

Mark DavisLeave a comment

David Lewis’s (I’m coming to accept this new convention with s-ending possessives!) solution to Putnam’s semantic indeterminacy is that we have a network of concepts that interrelate in a manner that is consistent under probing. As we read, we know from cognitive psychology, texts that bridge unfamiliar concepts from paragraph to paragraph help us to settle those ideas into the network, sometimes tentatively, and sometimes needing some kind of theoretical reorganization as we learn more. Then there are some concepts that have special referential magnetism and are piers for the bridges.

You can see these same kinds of bridging semantics being applied in the quest to solve some our most difficult and unresolved scientific conundrums. Quantum physics has presented strangeness from its very beginning and the various interpretations of that strangeness and efforts to reconcile the strange with our everyday logic remains incomplete. So it is not surprising that efforts to unravel the strange in quantum physics often appeal to Einstein’s descriptive approach to deciphering the strange problems of electromagnetic wave propagation that ultimately led to Special and then General Relativity.

Two recent approaches that borrow from the Einstein model are Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics and David Albert’s How to Teach Quantum Mechanics. Both are quite explicit in drawing comparisons to the relativity approach; Einstein, in merging space and time, and in realizing inertial and gravitational frames of reference were indistinguishable, introduced an explanation that defied our expectations of ordinary, Newtonian physical interactions. Time was no longer a fixed universal but became locked to observers and their relative motion, and to space itself.

Yet the two quantum approaches are decidedly different, as well. For Rovelli, there is no observer-independent state to quantum affairs.… Read the rest

Doubt at the Limit

Mark DavisLeave a comment

I seem to have a central theme to many of the last posts that is related to the demarcation between science and non-science, and also to the limits of what rationality allows where we care about such limits. This is not purely abstract, though, as we can see in today’s anti-science movements, whether anti-vaccination, flat Earthers, climate change deniers, or intelligent design proponents. Just today, Ars Technica reports on the first of these. The speakers at the event, held in close proximity to a massive measles outbreak, ranged from a “disgraced former gastroenterologist” to an angry rabbi. Efforts to counter them, in the form of a letter from a county supervisor and another rabbi, may have had an impact on the broader community, but probably not the die-hards of the movement.

Meanwhile, Lee Mcyntire at Boston University suggests what we are missing in these engagements in a great piece in Newsweek. Mcyntire applies the same argument to flat Earthers that I have applied to climate change deniers: what we need to reinforce is the value and, importantly, the limits inherent in scientific reasoning. Insisting, for example, that climate change science is 100% squared away just fuels the micro-circuits in the so-called meta-cognitive strategies regions of the brains of climate change deniers. Instead, Mcyntire recommends science engages the public in thinking about the limits of science, showing how doubt and process lead us to useable conclusions about topics that are suddenly fashionably in dispute.

No one knows if this approach is superior to the alternatives like the letter-writing method by authorities in the vaccination seminar approach, and it certainly seems longer term in that it needs to build against entrenched ideas and opinions, but it at least argues for a new methodology.… Read the rest

Causing Incoherence to Exist

Mark Davis1 Comment

I was continuing discussion on Richard Carrier vs. the Apologists but the format of the blog posting system made a detailed conversation difficult, so I decided to continue here. My core argument is that the premises of Kalam are incoherent. I also think some of the responses are as well.

But what do we mean by incoherent?

Richard interpreted that to mean logically impossible, but my intent was that incoherence is a property of the semantics of the words. Statements are incoherent when they don’t make sense or only make sense with a very narrow and unwarranted reading of the statement. The following argument follows a fairly standard analytic tradition analysis of examining the meaning of statements. I am currently fond of David Lewis’s school of thought on semantics, where the meaning of words exist as a combination of mild referential attachment, coherence within a network of other words, and, importantly, some words within that network achieve what is called “reference magnetism” in that they are tied to reality in significant ways and pull at the meaning of other words.

For instance, consider Premise 1 of a modern take on Kalam:

All things that begin to exist have a cause.

OK, so what does begin to exist mean? And how about cause? Let’s unpack “begin to exist,” first. We might say in our everyday world of people that, say, cars begin to exist at some point. But when is that point? For instance, is it latent in the design for the car? Is it when the body panels are attached on the assembly line? Is it when the final system is capable of car behavior? That is, when all the parts that were in fact designed are fully operational?… Read the rest

Two Points on Penrose, and One On Motivated Reasoning

Mark Davis1 Comment

Sir Roger Penrose is, without doubt, one of the most interesting polymaths of recent history. Even where I find his ideas fantastical, they are most definitely worth reading and understanding. Sean Carroll’s Mindscape podcast interview with Penrose from early January of this year is a treat.

I’ve previously discussed the Penrose-Hameroff conjectures concerning wave function collapse and their implication of quantum operations in the micro-tubule structure of the brain. I also used the conjecture in a short story. But the core driver for Penrose’s original conjecture, namely that algorithmic processes can’t explain human consciousness, has always been a claim in search of support. Equally difficult is pushing consciousness into the sphere of quantum phenomena that tend to show random, rather than directed, behavior. Randomness doesn’t clearly relate to the “hard problem” of consciousness that is about the experience of being conscious.

But take the idea that since mathematicians can prove things that are blocked by Gödel incompleteness, our brains must be different from Turing machines or collections of them. Our brains are likely messy and not theorem proving machines per se, despite operating according to logico-causal processes. Indeed, throw in an active analog to biological evolution based on variation-and-retention of ideas and insights that might actually have a bit of pseudo-randomness associated with it, and there is no reason to doubt that we are capable of the kind of system transcendence that Penrose is looking for.

Note that this doesn’t in any way impact the other horn of Penrose-Hameroff concerning the measurement problem in quantum theory, but there is no reason to suspect that quantum collapse is necessary for consciousness. It might flow the other way, though, and Penrose has created the Penrose Institute to look experimentally for evidence about these effects.… Read the rest