It seems obvious to me where psi fits in. Vedral is the guy who first predicted entanglement in time and he recently concocted that experiment to test the equivalence principle: Penrose's hypothesis was falsified at the given resolution.
Hi Ben, great post! I also grew up as a huge fan of Feyerabend's (against-) method, since much before hearing his name for the first time. I still am one.
I don't feel much of a need to "distinguish science from other areas of human pursuit." To me, science is not and can't be *essentially* different from hunting, foraging, fighting, building, politics, social interactions etc. (or if you prefer all these things are a kind of science). In all these areas of human pursuit one has to feel his way through uncharted territory, and all methods, schemes, and rules are eventually broken and replaced (and this is a good thing).
Of course we can try and describe the glorious mess of science and distinguish it from other glorious messes, at least for clarity, but the distinction can only be "weak" like the thing it describes.
you are the definition of a Paradigm Innovator, you live the 'explore' mode.
that's why the 'exploit' mode of finally being able to conjure AGI after 50+ years of thinking about it, gives enough space to 12-hour philosophy marathons like this.
based.
gives me solace that my wild departures from my 'explot process' are a feature not a bug.
Exceptional. I need to do a second read through. Yet, at first blush I really appreciate this framing—it resonates with me. Rigor gives science its backbone and keeps it honest and in my experience it’s often a measured, thoughtful form of methodological anarchism that allows new ideas to emerge. The most interesting progress seems to happen right in that tension between structure and creative deviation.
Macroscopic Quantum Entanglement » Vlatko Vedral https://share.google/CDGqtYdiugFA4aXKW
It seems obvious to me where psi fits in. Vedral is the guy who first predicted entanglement in time and he recently concocted that experiment to test the equivalence principle: Penrose's hypothesis was falsified at the given resolution.
Why don't you write about Tller's Boogle factor?
Hi Ben, great post! I also grew up as a huge fan of Feyerabend's (against-) method, since much before hearing his name for the first time. I still am one.
I don't feel much of a need to "distinguish science from other areas of human pursuit." To me, science is not and can't be *essentially* different from hunting, foraging, fighting, building, politics, social interactions etc. (or if you prefer all these things are a kind of science). In all these areas of human pursuit one has to feel his way through uncharted territory, and all methods, schemes, and rules are eventually broken and replaced (and this is a good thing).
Of course we can try and describe the glorious mess of science and distinguish it from other glorious messes, at least for clarity, but the distinction can only be "weak" like the thing it describes.
Happy New Year!
you are the definition of a Paradigm Innovator, you live the 'explore' mode.
that's why the 'exploit' mode of finally being able to conjure AGI after 50+ years of thinking about it, gives enough space to 12-hour philosophy marathons like this.
based.
gives me solace that my wild departures from my 'explot process' are a feature not a bug.
Ah! ... and the "Linear to Exponential Thinking" reminds me of your debate with Dr. Yampolskiy... Need I say more... ;-)
Here's an interesting Framework for evaluating artificial consciousness which your article reminded me of (it was awarded at the IONS Conference): https://noetic.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Actor-Framework-for-artificial-consciousness-with-anvillustrative-application-to-field-theories.pdf
Exceptional. I need to do a second read through. Yet, at first blush I really appreciate this framing—it resonates with me. Rigor gives science its backbone and keeps it honest and in my experience it’s often a measured, thoughtful form of methodological anarchism that allows new ideas to emerge. The most interesting progress seems to happen right in that tension between structure and creative deviation.
Your last sentence basically describes self-organized criticality.