It got me wondering, as a mathematician, where the line is drawn between seeing a problem from a new angle and formal ontological remodeling. For example, the duality between stochastic differential equations (SDE) describing random walks and partial differential equations (PDE) describing the distribution of possible places a random walker could be & how that distribution changes over time. Would solving an SDE by way of "remodeling" it as a PDE be an example of ontological remodeling, similar to solving Sudoku with rings & anchors instead of rows, columns & boxes?
Thanks again for writing this very clear & beautiful article!
I'm an ardent follower of CtC, but found this substack downstream of other posts here professing arguments against the AI x-risk concerns that constitute my main work right now.
this looks like related to how it is constructed. Swapping rows and columns before omitting numbers. I always try to find the swap pattern instead of numbers, maybe that is also what lies underneath new solution practice ...
When construction and deconstruction is the same tactic, and the former is known, it is not innovation, just "problem solving". Innovation requires greenfield experiments.
I think your description of the first blue sack is wrong. Shouldn't it be Row 3 + Row 7 + Box 4 + Box 6?
ah, yep, I just copied from a video and carried over the mislabel. fixed the text
This is such a cool article!!!
It got me wondering, as a mathematician, where the line is drawn between seeing a problem from a new angle and formal ontological remodeling. For example, the duality between stochastic differential equations (SDE) describing random walks and partial differential equations (PDE) describing the distribution of possible places a random walker could be & how that distribution changes over time. Would solving an SDE by way of "remodeling" it as a PDE be an example of ontological remodeling, similar to solving Sudoku with rings & anchors instead of rows, columns & boxes?
Thanks again for writing this very clear & beautiful article!
I'm an ardent follower of CtC, but found this substack downstream of other posts here professing arguments against the AI x-risk concerns that constitute my main work right now.
The world is very small sometimes.
this looks like related to how it is constructed. Swapping rows and columns before omitting numbers. I always try to find the swap pattern instead of numbers, maybe that is also what lies underneath new solution practice ...
When construction and deconstruction is the same tactic, and the former is known, it is not innovation, just "problem solving". Innovation requires greenfield experiments.
Phistomofel with an e