In 2012 I participated in a small group discussion led by @doctorow. I chanced into it, but he painted a picture I've thought about often in the years since, and that has changed the way I see the world.
What follows is not literally @doctorow's words, but rather the ideas as they appear refracted through my memory and further reflection.
He reminded us of what was by then becoming Silicon Valley conventional wisdom, almost certainly correct, that software is eating the world.
That is, over time, more & more of the objects & systems in our world are having a software layer added. We no longer directly control them; rather their behaviour is mediated. This gives us extra capabilities, but also means a loss of control, ceding it to the software layer
You know the story: books are becoming mediated by a software layer. Cars are being mediated by a software layer. Home appliances. Even our bodies.
So too at a higher level, the systems that run our world: housing, transit, conversation (hi @jack! ), democracy, and almost every other human system.
Eventually it seems likely that everything from the tiniest objects to the largest systems will be mediated by a complex ecology of software.
What @doctorow pointed out is that that mediation layer is an absolute, full-on battleground.
It's a battleground of all the governments of the world. Companies. Not-for-profits. Activists. Black-hat hackers. White-hat hackers. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Over time, invisible to most users, that battle is becoming fiercer & fiercer & fiercer, as the stakes rise & rise.
And because this mediation layer increasingly runs our lives, it has many of the characteristics of both law and infrastructure. But it's law and infrastructure subject to an increasingly fierce, ongoing, invisible battle by a multitude of interests.
We'll all be subject to the outcomes of that battle in unexpected ways, ways that will be profound, sometimes big and obvious, sometimes very hard to detect until after the fact
Anyways, I think often of that mediation layer now, and the battle for control, and wonder how it will turn out, and how the outcome can be influenced.
It seems likely that figuring out the principles & protocols of governance for this mediation layer will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century, a challenge much like figuring out the principles underlying, say, the US constitution.
Encouragingly, it seems like wisdom & deep thought can make a big difference. Ideas like freedom of speech, separation of powers, & religious freedom aren't obvious; they were invented by brilliant, humane people. I wonder what similar depth of thought can help achieve today?
As AI eats the world in the decades to come, this will apply especially strongly there...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hadn't realized that Hobbes knew both Bacon and Galileo(!!!)
I've been learning a little about the history of duality - the difference between description and experience. And I hadn't realized just how long a history it has - there are clear antecedents no later than ~500 BCE (and probably much earlier). Here's a latecomer Thomas Hobbes:
I had not realized how long it took space to become fundamental. It plays a bit part for a long time, but there's a real argument it only takes center stage post-Newton:
@davidbessis Curious about this. I've met a fair number of aphantasics, people who have no ability to mentally see images. I haven't asked any about this specific problem, but certainly some have told me that they struggle with similar problems
I'm not quite sure what my question for you is. Perhaps it's this: how widely have you tested these ideas on other people?
Instinctively, my answer is no. I'd expect the Lyapunov exponents in the system to be zero - the degrees of freedom are rotation (no exp divergence, ignoring friction) & center of mass (ditto), so there's nothing to amplify quantum fluctuations, even in the absence of decoherence
That said, I'm not sure, and would need to reflect further
Fun problem; it'd make a nice essay question for a class on quantum chaos!
Reflecting more: there's something funny about unstable equilibria. Eg if I start a pendulum inverted, quantum fluctuations + decoherence will make the pendulum "choose" a side, pretty rapidly. But AFAICS there are no similar points for the coin...
There's a lot of ways one could engage with this (and reasons one might be wary). Here I will mostly adopt one frame, which is thinking from a personal pov about these principles, applying the principle of charity
Put another way: in this thread I want to engage positively and earnestly with the principles, and with criticism as a means to improvement or alternate perspectives, not as a principal end in itself