feat(tazjin/blog): add some thoughts r/5044

Change-Id: If161fd8b6c96d66aa63cfb22f8a8bb26d71c5caf
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6885
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Autosubmit: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI

1 files changed, 142 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/users/tazjin/blog/posts/thoughts.md b/users/tazjin/blog/posts/thoughts.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..7ce23f9c8779
--- /dev/null
+++ b/users/tazjin/blog/posts/thoughts.md
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+<!--
+
+  This file contains a bunch of random thoughts I don't want to lose,
+  often resulting from conversation with other people, but that are
+  too far removed from what most people can relate to for me to just
+  publish them. Sometimes it's convenient to be able to share them,
+  though.
+
+  For that reason, if you stumble upon this file without me having
+  linked it to you intentionally, feel free to read it but keep the
+  sharing to a minimum (though do feel free to share the thoughts
+  themselves, of course).
+
+-->
+WARNING: This is not intended for a large audience. If you stumble
+upon this page by chance, please keep the sharing to a minimum.
+
+TIP: It's always work-in-progress. Things come and go. Or change. Who
+knows?
+
+---------
+
+### Three things
+
+*[mid/late 2020]*
+
+All things in the universe take the shape of one of approximately
+three things. If you had Hoogle for the entire universe, you'd
+probably find that one of them is `fmap`.
+
+There might be a few more, or a few less (or some may have been
+deprecated), but you get the idea. I guess [five][] would be a good
+number.
+
+[five]: https://principiadiscordia.com/book/23.php
+
+----------------------
+
+### Free energy principle
+
+*[mid/late 2020]*
+
+Karl Friston wrote:
+
+> The free-energy principle says that any self-organizing system that
+> is at equilibrium with its environment must minimize its free
+> energy.
+
+Or, somewhat paraphrased:
+
+> Any Markov blanket capable of modeling its environment aims to
+> reduce its level of surprise by either adapting its model, or
+> through other action.
+
+Seems reasonable to me.
+
+### More bizarre universe
+
+*[many years ago]*
+
+Douglas Adams wrote:
+
+> There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
+> what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
+> disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
+> inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
+> already happened.
+
+### Alpha decay
+
+*[late 2022]*
+
+Finance people say:
+
+> Alpha Decay is commonly referred to as the loss of prediction power
+> of a trading strategy over time. As a consequence, the profitability
+> of a strategy tends to gradually decrease. Given enough time, the
+> strategy converges to having no superior predictive power and
+> returns when compared to a suitable benchmark.
+
+A market is a big optimiser. Any successful trading strategy adds
+friction in a place that the optimiser wants to remove.
+
+Alpha decay is unavoidable without changing and adapting the strategy.
+
+### Optimising universe
+
+*[late 2022]*
+
+*(thanks edef for helping me think through this one!)*
+
+Assume that the universe acts as a giant optimiser, and consider that
+the three things above are related and specialisations of more generic
+ideas:
+
+1. Every delineable entity in the universe (i.e. every *Markov
+   blanket*) attempts to reduce its level of surprise (the free energy
+   principle).
+
+2. The universe needs replacement (a more bizarre universe) if global
+   surprise drops to a minimum[^heat].
+
+3. Without improvement that outpaces the optimiser of the universe,
+   any strategy leading to (2) will get eroded by alpha decay long
+   before.
+
+4. We don't know if it is possible to outpace the optimiser from
+   within.
+
+On a personal note, it seems to me that achieving (2) is likely
+undesirable. It probably takes god[^god] a lot of resources to create
+an ever more complex universe and this process might be much less
+enjoyable than "running" (for lack of a better word) a universe. Under
+this assumption, a universe that achieves (2) faster than others might
+be a failure, and on a higher level conditions leading to its creation
+might be subject to another optimiser.
+
+Or it could be the other way around, but this seems more likely to me
+personally.
+
+### Superintelligence
+
+*[late 2022]*
+
+Under the previous assumption, achieving superintelligence is likely a
+bad idea for anyone feeling some kind of attachment to *this*
+universe.
+
+Or it might be the exact opposite, but I don't think so.
+
+-------------------------------
+
+[^heat]: Note that this is consistent with the heat death of the
+    universe.
+
+[^god]: I'm using the word "god" as the best English approximation of
+    a concept that different religions and philosophies all attempt to
+    approach. I think that for many cognitive purposes, an
+    anthropomorphised idea (as in the abrahamic religions) is useful,
+    but ideas from some Eastern religions or modern philosophers like
+    Bach or Watts are likely more aligned with the "nature of things"
+    as such.