Category Archives: Philosophy

Success is innate, but ironic

It’s ironic that the type of person who is capable of obtaining success is incapable of enjoying it. By most people’s standards, I’m probably doing very well already. After all, I graduated first in my undergraduate class, I received my MS in one year at age 22, I’m on track to receive my Ph. D. in at most 3 years total, probably 2, and the job offers are still streaming in, with starting salaries that have just officially broken the 6-figure barrier. By my own standards, however, I still have yet to accomplish anything earth-shattering. After all, aside from my divisor function and quantile tree research, I haven’t really discovered anything on my own. True, I have lots of hypotheses, but they don’t do you much good except from a theoretical standpoint unless you have the equipment, resources, or public response to follow up on them. Even if I did have such resources, I don’t have the clout to ensure that my ideas are heard. By my own standards, I am not successful.

I will be, though. So long as I am given the time, I’m sure of it now, because I’ve realized that the capacity for success is an innate property. True, I have skills that are extremely in demand, which is very much helping me get jobs among other things (and data mining/machine learning jobs pay a lot), but when I speak of success, I seldom mean money, and I almost never mean something that depends on the support of other people (because as I’ve seen over the past few years, society does not make enough sense to consistently support pretty much anyone).

No. I’ll succeed because I’m able to do things many people cannot. Most people can only handle one area of specialization, yet I’ve utterly refused to specialize, even while society attempted to actively force me to, and yet maintain expertise in almost every field I’ve touched. In some fields, it even extends beyond that of most specialists, and I’m still rather young and nowhere near the apex of my skill (except perhaps in mathematics, where skill declines after the late 20s and where I now feel confident enough to extend my previous research in the direction of Robin’s Theorem and GRH after finishing my dissertation). I embrace principles such as the universality of ideas, the ability to fit insane workloads into arbitrarily small amounts of time (while I was winning all those awards, I was also doing research, programming on the side, writing music, taking an 18 credit load, and working three jobs, all at once), and the use of the subconscious as an idea factory endowed with all of the power of the conscious mind but none of the effort or attention required of conscious idea generation because I’ve not only theorized but demonstrated them.

Most people dismiss such philosophies because they are either incapable of following them (and thus presume them false from their own experiences) or because they disagree with their premises or potential consequences. Either way, it simply makes my philosophy all the more unique. There’s strength in that difference.

No need to keep ideas to myself

I don’t need to worry about withholding any ideas from an unworthy society. An unworthy society will do that all by itself.

We can detect breast cancer with 96% accuracy. It’s not as if this is a fluke of the classifier, either; our research methods are fine. But innocent people are very likely going to die because we can’t get our results past peer reviewers who won’t give us reasons for their decisions.

I’m blameless here, but it makes me wonder why I bother.

More on the Objective Reality of Ideas

My philosophy came up in an online discussion today. I decided to copy the explanation I gave:

Question:

Post #18
1 reply
“So basically, you believe there are ideas out there, and it’s just a matter of time before we discover them…

And so they are not original ideas, or ideas that we “create,” but instead truths that already exist that we simply discover and recombine according to our own principles.

So creativity, then, is making connections.

I wonder if an original idea could ever be “wrong”

Response:

Post #19
Essentially. It’s sort of like Platonic idealism, in that the things in the real world are simply combinations of some set of absolute concepts, such as “has branches”, “is green”, etc. Theoretically, if we had an infinite amount of time to do so, we could describe the entire universe in terms of how these ideas come together. (We don’t have an infinite amount of time, so what we get is “knowledge”: an approximation to the truth that becomes more and more accurate with time. Not just science, either; we’re also part of the universe, so the humanities and arts are just as valid. If you’re familiar with calculus, think integral vs. sum. They’re equivalent in the limit).

However, because we exist within the material world, the ideas also have a subjective component. Even though we can perceive the same ideas differently, our perceptions are still both true; it’s not as if we are seeing different “shadows on the cave wall”.

The example I like to use is a photo of a tree. Say we take two photographs of the same tree with different exposures. They’re going to appear differently, but that does not change the fact that they *are* (in an absolute sense) photos of the same tree. A person may or may not *identify* them as the same tree, however; this is where the subjectivity comes in. However, because the subjective component of an idea is not inferior to the absolute one, whether the response is “this is the same tree” or “this is not the same tree” is irrelevant; they’re both correct.

That’s actually the logical conclusion of this whole philosophy – there’s no such thing as an idea that’s truly wrong. Of course, how useful it is is still up for debate (though most people tend to be very bad at judging how useful an idea is; in general, people tend to underestimate). Even blatantly contradictory ideas such as “the sky is green” are useful because they allow us to refine our approximation of the truth by discarding inconsistencies.

Debt? Why?

Not an idea, just a philosophy of mine: don’t owe anyone money if you can at all help it. Ever. Period. It’s a bad situation to be in. If you have less, spend less until you have more. I’m watching some of my friends get into debt and thinking “Why? Was there no better way?”

I don’t even have a credit card. This isn’t an issue, because I’d max out just about any credit card’s limit before I could draw 1/10 of the balance on my debit card. This is the way I intend to keep it. There is perhaps a slightly higher risk of liability if the card is stolen or compromised, but my bank still offers me a very great deal of protection.

CDs are pretty nice, too. Put $10,000 that you almost certainly aren’t going to use anyway away for a few months and take out $10,500. Not a bad chunk of change, considering that the net impact of the CD on your ability to use your finances was probably zero.

I tend to shy away from riskier investments that are tied to markets, at least until I’ve had a chance to perform a thorough analysis, complete with time-series mining and lots of fun statistics in tandem with my own social intuitions. And then I’d probably just invest on my own. Or not at all, if I can find some better way to attain the funds necessary for my goals while still retaining my rather strict internal ethical standards.

It's not a Cave; it's a Mountain

Plato’s allegory of the cave is appropriate for the ideas that Plato was trying to present, but I think he fails to distinguish between different layers of meaning. I think using a mountain would perhaps be clearer. For example, let’s say a cellphone rings and begins to play Mozart’s Sonata in C Major. In Plato’s terms, there is one Form for the Sonata in C Major (despite being a construct on the part of Mozart, but whether constructs can be Platonic realizations is a separate philosophical question), and that this ringtone is just an example of it. However, the ringtone isn’t just Mozart’s Sonata in C Major: it’s also a cellphone ringtone, a series of pitches, a piece of synthesized music, a particular type of wave propagating through space, a movement of air causing bones in the ear to vibrate, and a series of nervous signals between the ear and the brain, among many other things. So either it’s a realization of many manifestations of one Form, or it’s a realization of multiple Forms. Consider the first choice: if these were all manifestations of Mozart’s Sonata in C Major, what about printed sheet music? Surely the appropriate sheet music is also a manifestation of Mozart’s Sonata in C Major, and yet it is not a piece of synthesized music or a sound wave propagating through space. Therefore, these properties are not intrinsic to the Form of Mozart’s Sonata in C Major, and may be considered the Form of a cellphone ringtone, or perhaps of aural music itself. In object-oriented terms, this piece inherits from at least two classes (doubtless more). So how can we prioritize these? Well, since Plato’s philosophy strove towards a universal Good in the realm of the abstract, it would make sense to prioritize them according to their generality, with the Forms themselves being the most general of all concepts which are expressed. Thus we have a mountain, rather than a cave – “Gradus ad Parnassum” (steps to Parnassus), in a sense.

The Problem of Evil

One possible resolution to the “problem of evil” (the paradoxical existence of evil in a world ruled by an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God) might be a reinterpretation of “omnipotence”. Simply, anything might be possible… but it might be hard.

Relativism

While walking, I came up with an interesting argument for relativism, which is one of the philosophies I extend in my “Treatise on the Objective Reality of Ideas”: support I take two pictures of a tree, one with a very short exposure time, one with a very long one. Which is the truth? Well, both of them reflect the image of the same real-world tree, and yet one would certainly appear more “tree-like” than the other (ala Plato)… yet if the perspective is changed (extending the exposure time), the very concept of what a tree is can change.

Let’s take the analogy even further. What if we take a photo of a tree and digitally enhance it? (Nothing too complicated that would lose the image of the tree; let’s say we just normalize the image’s histogram). Is the enhanced photo still a tree? What would the distinction be between enhancing the photo in software and changing the capture parameters on the camera? What if the camera could perform normalization directly?

Even better, what if a photo was, say, underexposed, and was digitally corrected to more closely resemble the real-world scene that it was meant to capture? The enhancements are “fake”, but they more closely match reality than the unenhanced photo!

The point I’m trying to drive at is that it’s foolish to say that any single image of the tree is the image of the tree. There is an entire family (technically of infinite size) of images that could pass as a tree.

So what you perceive as a tree depends on you.

"Intellectual community" indeed!

The very existence of an “intellectual community” is the reason that most scientists don’t accomplish anything. Trying to solve other people’s challenges and correct others’ inefficiencies is not how great discoveries are made – it never will be. It’s necessary, but it’s a barrier to significant scientific discovery.

Great scientists make observations, form hypotheses, and perform experiments (theoretical ones at the least) to confirm them. They don’t solve challenges left by other scientists’ work; that’s what people who simply want lots of publications do, because it’s easier.

Systems

System = Method + Structure

Take a human, for example. The structure that supports the system is the body – the compiled version of the DNA source code. The methods, however, are things such as consciousness, experience, personality, thought, and emotion that run on top of the structure. You could duplicate the structure, but that won’t necessarily result in the same methods. Take identical twins, for example. They have mostly identical genetic data and thus mostly identical bodies, but they may not do the same things, think the same ways, or otherwise act like the same person.

There are two ways to create a system: Either the structure must be fully present before the methods can emerge or the structure and methods must codevelop (the latter is how evolution typically works). You can’t build the methods if the structure supporting them is nonexistent, just as you can’t construct a building from the top down.

Edit: Oddly enough, this appears to be a fundamental principle of the Jainist view of the universe. That means even more interesting discussion on the nature of systems, so I don’t mind!