Paul Whitmore Sas
@hormetic.bsky.social
Trained in experimental psychology @Stanford
Saw field rebrand as "Behavioral Economics" after *psychologist* Kahneman won 2001 Nobel
Now am back to just an experimenter, post-Repligate
Measuring Flow Experience in Human-AI collabs -> MTV8NG.site
Saw field rebrand as "Behavioral Economics" after *psychologist* Kahneman won 2001 Nobel
Now am back to just an experimenter, post-Repligate
Measuring Flow Experience in Human-AI collabs -> MTV8NG.site
I came to @Stanford
BECAUSE of Amos’s work with DK & Paul Slovic
I had my world rocked when I read “Judgment under Uncertainty” on a cross country roadtrip before my senior year @NorthwesternU
Too late to switch from philosophy, I realized that *psycho*logic beats “logic” as a key to the world
BECAUSE of Amos’s work with DK & Paul Slovic
I had my world rocked when I read “Judgment under Uncertainty” on a cross country roadtrip before my senior year @NorthwesternU
Too late to switch from philosophy, I realized that *psycho*logic beats “logic” as a key to the world
March 16, 2025 at 6:17 PM
I came to @Stanford
BECAUSE of Amos’s work with DK & Paul Slovic
I had my world rocked when I read “Judgment under Uncertainty” on a cross country roadtrip before my senior year @NorthwesternU
Too late to switch from philosophy, I realized that *psycho*logic beats “logic” as a key to the world
BECAUSE of Amos’s work with DK & Paul Slovic
I had my world rocked when I read “Judgment under Uncertainty” on a cross country roadtrip before my senior year @NorthwesternU
Too late to switch from philosophy, I realized that *psycho*logic beats “logic” as a key to the world
Few know that Amos died rather suddenly in 1996, just 6 months after a skin melanoma was found
In his penultimate 3 mos, his already perfected life continued, as he worked & taught
@Stanford
undergrads his classic “Judgment & Decisionmaking”
In his penultimate 3 mos, his already perfected life continued, as he worked & taught
@Stanford
undergrads his classic “Judgment & Decisionmaking”
March 16, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Few know that Amos died rather suddenly in 1996, just 6 months after a skin melanoma was found
In his penultimate 3 mos, his already perfected life continued, as he worked & taught
@Stanford
undergrads his classic “Judgment & Decisionmaking”
In his penultimate 3 mos, his already perfected life continued, as he worked & taught
@Stanford
undergrads his classic “Judgment & Decisionmaking”
Once, at
@SJDMOfficial
conference, I asked Kahneman if his partner, Amos, was the Slow Thinker (ie, logical/math)
Danny said, if he was, Amos was the fastest slow thinker he’d ever known
@SJDMOfficial
conference, I asked Kahneman if his partner, Amos, was the Slow Thinker (ie, logical/math)
Danny said, if he was, Amos was the fastest slow thinker he’d ever known
March 16, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Once, at
@SJDMOfficial
conference, I asked Kahneman if his partner, Amos, was the Slow Thinker (ie, logical/math)
Danny said, if he was, Amos was the fastest slow thinker he’d ever known
@SJDMOfficial
conference, I asked Kahneman if his partner, Amos, was the Slow Thinker (ie, logical/math)
Danny said, if he was, Amos was the fastest slow thinker he’d ever known
Almost 30 years later, I just realized that this could be Amos Tversky’s epitaph
Kahneman became world famous after 2002 Nobel
Danny did everything he could to honor Amos’ memory in collaborating on Prospect Theory
Still, outside our field, Amos is incognito (as he must’ve wished)
Kahneman became world famous after 2002 Nobel
Danny did everything he could to honor Amos’ memory in collaborating on Prospect Theory
Still, outside our field, Amos is incognito (as he must’ve wished)
March 16, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Almost 30 years later, I just realized that this could be Amos Tversky’s epitaph
Kahneman became world famous after 2002 Nobel
Danny did everything he could to honor Amos’ memory in collaborating on Prospect Theory
Still, outside our field, Amos is incognito (as he must’ve wished)
Kahneman became world famous after 2002 Nobel
Danny did everything he could to honor Amos’ memory in collaborating on Prospect Theory
Still, outside our field, Amos is incognito (as he must’ve wished)
Just shared a screenshot of this over on twitter
Your coverage here (at a time of serious cable incidents) makes me visit bluesky much more
Thanks!
Your coverage here (at a time of serious cable incidents) makes me visit bluesky much more
Thanks!
December 25, 2024 at 9:06 PM
Just shared a screenshot of this over on twitter
Your coverage here (at a time of serious cable incidents) makes me visit bluesky much more
Thanks!
Your coverage here (at a time of serious cable incidents) makes me visit bluesky much more
Thanks!
We've ~10^80 primary particles (baryons)
Thought experiment
Convert all 10^80 to be maximally efficient physical computers
Compute at thermodynamic max per Planck time (smallest time interval, ~5.39 x 10^-44 secs)
-> 10^124 computations
That'd be all the math that fits
kaput, or should I say
Ω
Thought experiment
Convert all 10^80 to be maximally efficient physical computers
Compute at thermodynamic max per Planck time (smallest time interval, ~5.39 x 10^-44 secs)
-> 10^124 computations
That'd be all the math that fits
kaput, or should I say
Ω
December 20, 2024 at 9:36 PM
We've ~10^80 primary particles (baryons)
Thought experiment
Convert all 10^80 to be maximally efficient physical computers
Compute at thermodynamic max per Planck time (smallest time interval, ~5.39 x 10^-44 secs)
-> 10^124 computations
That'd be all the math that fits
kaput, or should I say
Ω
Thought experiment
Convert all 10^80 to be maximally efficient physical computers
Compute at thermodynamic max per Planck time (smallest time interval, ~5.39 x 10^-44 secs)
-> 10^124 computations
That'd be all the math that fits
kaput, or should I say
Ω
My outlook puts computability at the crux
Assembly Theory defines the improbability of assembling an actual computer - the odds against it are Boltzmaniac big!
Algorithmic IT's Ω bounds how many steps, computing with God's absolutely dense code, are required to go from axioms to theorems
Assembly Theory defines the improbability of assembling an actual computer - the odds against it are Boltzmaniac big!
Algorithmic IT's Ω bounds how many steps, computing with God's absolutely dense code, are required to go from axioms to theorems
December 20, 2024 at 9:24 PM
My outlook puts computability at the crux
Assembly Theory defines the improbability of assembling an actual computer - the odds against it are Boltzmaniac big!
Algorithmic IT's Ω bounds how many steps, computing with God's absolutely dense code, are required to go from axioms to theorems
Assembly Theory defines the improbability of assembling an actual computer - the odds against it are Boltzmaniac big!
Algorithmic IT's Ω bounds how many steps, computing with God's absolutely dense code, are required to go from axioms to theorems
Voila, we now see that using math to generate more math is actually a process that could be treated as something that's done within the ultimate laws of physics
Do we need more mathematical objects than we could ever possibly compute?
Do we need more mathematical objects than we could ever possibly compute?
December 20, 2024 at 9:18 PM
Voila, we now see that using math to generate more math is actually a process that could be treated as something that's done within the ultimate laws of physics
Do we need more mathematical objects than we could ever possibly compute?
Do we need more mathematical objects than we could ever possibly compute?
When we know what's the physically minimal computer, that would be in the equation for how many computations could fit in our lightcone
Algorithmic Info Theory would provide a measure of how many computational steps, in the ideal, would be required to go from an axiom to a theorem
Algorithmic Info Theory would provide a measure of how many computational steps, in the ideal, would be required to go from an axiom to a theorem
December 20, 2024 at 9:15 PM
When we know what's the physically minimal computer, that would be in the equation for how many computations could fit in our lightcone
Algorithmic Info Theory would provide a measure of how many computational steps, in the ideal, would be required to go from an axiom to a theorem
Algorithmic Info Theory would provide a measure of how many computational steps, in the ideal, would be required to go from an axiom to a theorem
David Deutsch's Constructor theory aims to explain which physical transformations are possible given the Laws
It's demonstrably possible in our physical world to run computations, but we don't know what's the minimum amount of work/energy/space to compute 1 bit
It's demonstrably possible in our physical world to run computations, but we don't know what's the minimum amount of work/energy/space to compute 1 bit
December 20, 2024 at 9:11 PM
David Deutsch's Constructor theory aims to explain which physical transformations are possible given the Laws
It's demonstrably possible in our physical world to run computations, but we don't know what's the minimum amount of work/energy/space to compute 1 bit
It's demonstrably possible in our physical world to run computations, but we don't know what's the minimum amount of work/energy/space to compute 1 bit
Assembling that computer is a necessary step prior to computing even the first digit of π (unless you're a Platonist like Godel). I'm no Godel, so I believe
Being capable of computing one bit requires a physical object, and all maths is downstream of this improbable assembler
Being capable of computing one bit requires a physical object, and all maths is downstream of this improbable assembler
December 20, 2024 at 9:09 PM
Assembling that computer is a necessary step prior to computing even the first digit of π (unless you're a Platonist like Godel). I'm no Godel, so I believe
Being capable of computing one bit requires a physical object, and all maths is downstream of this improbable assembler
Being capable of computing one bit requires a physical object, and all maths is downstream of this improbable assembler
Next step
Assembly Theory by @saraimari.bsky.social + colleagues
AT starts with the realization that things must be assembled. It's crazy improbable to assemble even the simplest molecule
What IF there's a physical realization of a Turing machine that is provably bounded as the minimal computer?
Assembly Theory by @saraimari.bsky.social + colleagues
AT starts with the realization that things must be assembled. It's crazy improbable to assemble even the simplest molecule
What IF there's a physical realization of a Turing machine that is provably bounded as the minimal computer?
December 20, 2024 at 9:05 PM
Next step
Assembly Theory by @saraimari.bsky.social + colleagues
AT starts with the realization that things must be assembled. It's crazy improbable to assemble even the simplest molecule
What IF there's a physical realization of a Turing machine that is provably bounded as the minimal computer?
Assembly Theory by @saraimari.bsky.social + colleagues
AT starts with the realization that things must be assembled. It's crazy improbable to assemble even the simplest molecule
What IF there's a physical realization of a Turing machine that is provably bounded as the minimal computer?
On beyond Komolgorov, I stan Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theoretic measure of Complexity
He defines the Omega function as an infinitely dense, non-computable object that includes within its expansion the code to construct every bit of info
This coding scheme is like God's version of Python
He defines the Omega function as an infinitely dense, non-computable object that includes within its expansion the code to construct every bit of info
This coding scheme is like God's version of Python
December 20, 2024 at 9:02 PM
On beyond Komolgorov, I stan Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theoretic measure of Complexity
He defines the Omega function as an infinitely dense, non-computable object that includes within its expansion the code to construct every bit of info
This coding scheme is like God's version of Python
He defines the Omega function as an infinitely dense, non-computable object that includes within its expansion the code to construct every bit of info
This coding scheme is like God's version of Python
My religion invokes Erdős's memorable line:
“You don’t have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book”
www.quantamagazine.org/gunter-ziegl...
“You don’t have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book”
www.quantamagazine.org/gunter-ziegl...
In Search of God’s Perfect Proofs | Quanta Magazine
The mathematicians Günter Ziegler and Martin Aigner have spent the past 20 years collecting some of the most beautiful proofs in mathematics.
www.quantamagazine.org
December 20, 2024 at 8:58 PM
My religion invokes Erdős's memorable line:
“You don’t have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book”
www.quantamagazine.org/gunter-ziegl...
“You don’t have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book”
www.quantamagazine.org/gunter-ziegl...
Complexity theory
Kolmogorov showed that one measure of the info content of a string is the minimal program required to generate that string
Cue Erdos's faith in the Book: God writes down all the most beautiful proofs
The beautiful may be the minimal number of steps to prove a result
Kolmogorov showed that one measure of the info content of a string is the minimal program required to generate that string
Cue Erdos's faith in the Book: God writes down all the most beautiful proofs
The beautiful may be the minimal number of steps to prove a result
December 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM
Complexity theory
Kolmogorov showed that one measure of the info content of a string is the minimal program required to generate that string
Cue Erdos's faith in the Book: God writes down all the most beautiful proofs
The beautiful may be the minimal number of steps to prove a result
Kolmogorov showed that one measure of the info content of a string is the minimal program required to generate that string
Cue Erdos's faith in the Book: God writes down all the most beautiful proofs
The beautiful may be the minimal number of steps to prove a result
Another limitation is Landauer's Principle, which bounds the entropy of reversible computation, the thermodynamically minimal operation to generate a bit
The minimum entropy per computed bit would again show how much info could be packed into our U
The minimum entropy per computed bit would again show how much info could be packed into our U
December 20, 2024 at 8:49 PM
Another limitation is Landauer's Principle, which bounds the entropy of reversible computation, the thermodynamically minimal operation to generate a bit
The minimum entropy per computed bit would again show how much info could be packed into our U
The minimum entropy per computed bit would again show how much info could be packed into our U
The holographic view claims that the info dumped into a Black Hole is preserved on the surface area (2D), which maps the 3D info that could be imputed to the volume of the hole
Nothing's denser than BHs, so the Bekenstein Bound defines how much info can be packed into a given space
Nothing's denser than BHs, so the Bekenstein Bound defines how much info can be packed into a given space
December 20, 2024 at 8:47 PM
The holographic view claims that the info dumped into a Black Hole is preserved on the surface area (2D), which maps the 3D info that could be imputed to the volume of the hole
Nothing's denser than BHs, so the Bekenstein Bound defines how much info can be packed into a given space
Nothing's denser than BHs, so the Bekenstein Bound defines how much info can be packed into a given space
A couple of physical constraints on how much info we can squeeze into the physical universe
Bekenstein Bound
&
Landauer's Principle
December 20, 2024 at 8:44 PM
A couple of physical constraints on how much info we can squeeze into the physical universe
Bekenstein Bound
&
Landauer's Principle
Wolfram defines "computational irreducibility" for CAs (like the game of life) as meaning that we have no look-ahead for how the Nth step will operate, w/o first going through all the prior steps to compute that.
Seems relevant to mathematical inference, since we can't get to a theorem w/o work
December 20, 2024 at 8:41 PM
Wolfram defines "computational irreducibility" for CAs (like the game of life) as meaning that we have no look-ahead for how the Nth step will operate, w/o first going through all the prior steps to compute that.
Seems relevant to mathematical inference, since we can't get to a theorem w/o work
I never realized that it was an idiom (and it would've taken a bit more thought than I spent to recognize that chocolate melts if meets hot water)
Leigh Caldwell used pricing chocolate teapots as his running example throughout his (terrific) The Psychology of Price
www.amazon.com/Psychology-P...
Leigh Caldwell used pricing chocolate teapots as his running example throughout his (terrific) The Psychology of Price
www.amazon.com/Psychology-P...
The Psychology of Price: How to use price to increase demand, profit and customer satisfaction
The Psychology of Price: How to use price to increase demand, profit and customer satisfaction - Kindle edition by Caldwell, Leigh. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading The Psychology of Price: How to use price to increase demand, profit and customer satisfaction.
www.amazon.com
December 12, 2024 at 9:36 PM
I never realized that it was an idiom (and it would've taken a bit more thought than I spent to recognize that chocolate melts if meets hot water)
Leigh Caldwell used pricing chocolate teapots as his running example throughout his (terrific) The Psychology of Price
www.amazon.com/Psychology-P...
Leigh Caldwell used pricing chocolate teapots as his running example throughout his (terrific) The Psychology of Price
www.amazon.com/Psychology-P...