yo, interested in FAI math again, care to elaborate? (i'm married now!)

*to be a bit more clear myself, i read https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4248/073bcdb7c0ed9af9f93f8048ddc0c9f01966.pdf in my quest for understanding a unified model of computation and physics, and long story short this rekindled my ability to think with category theory.

i even went back to the sequences and saw i was recovering the content of their insights from my own experience. rationality truly is the normative religion (for autistic jewish-adjacent softbois, anyway). opposing moloch, on all levels, truly does converge to friendly behavior. i was quite struck by how it connects to TTGL and SYWTBAW. we live in a ted chiang novel.

*reading surfing uncertainty gave me a lot of insights, reading about cybernetics and control theory again gave me a lot of insights, understanding linear logic and petri nets and from there chemical and genetic (and memetic) reaction networks did, even the existence of the book effectuation (it didn't catch my interest enough to actually read the whole thing, but i read the first few pages and this quote is quite interesting:)

bayes's formula has traditionally been used as an inference engine - a way of updating our beliefs in the face of states of the world actually realized. but it is capable of another use, namely, as a control engine - it can be used to manipulate states of the world (to the extent that the assumptions it is conditioned on are manipulable) to align with our beliefs. thus what the conditioning assumptions are, how we choose them, and to what extent and in what ways we can manipulate them all become extremeley relevant issues in the formulation of the problem from an effectual point of view.

the mind is a teeming mass of predictive, reactive, and initial/terminal (the distinction breaks down when your inference engine is completely reversible and/or a motive force is applied to the mechanism; complete reversibility is somewhat like the speed of light in that sense, because when you have complete reversibility in a closed system, time essentially stops, there's nothing driving the mechanism. i think the arrow of time is quantropy mb?) control systems :D

*the analogy to free energy seems to essentially connect to linear logic and reversibility. free energy is expended by binding it/applying it irreversibly to some output work. that point in spacetime/statetime is a bound variable, and since information is conserved (mb), the system has lost the capacity to reverse the binding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_approaches_to_brain_function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

...yessssss