All logic is a prior

all constants are magical noise

There is an interesting discussion involving game theory and learning models at Updatelessness doesn't solve most problems (in the unavoidable context of AI training).

It’s written for the lay person. But it contains a lot of jargon, so it’s really for the lay person who knows what game theory is. The learning part of it investigates that field with the terms updatelessness and updatefulness but using a strategic filter.

Off you go…

---

— Meta-strategy structures iterate and thus possibly lead to chaos and complexity in recursive doom spirals of madness as tactics become interference across levels, across governance and playmaking. Updating priors… if logic is a prior, how do you update that ? Is that a meta question? Priors are messy because they logically require a POV ( partiality) (how can logic itself be a partiality?) which may not itself be logical or available to logic.

What-if/Or-perhaps winners are grinners despite the gameplay logic provides?

Is all logic a post-rationalisation, a hindsight, that winners grin with? Evolution doesn’t care about logic per se.

[[[Writerly edit: everything below the following line was written after the last sentence, but, so if you are following my logic you will not be following how I wrote the piece here. Alles klar?]]]

(And I do not mean that in a Λόγος as “in the beginning was the word, and the word was god” type of way.)

---

Game theory and rational actor discourse in political science are closely linked. They have a mad agent bag of tricks in the latter discipline. The fool who moves fast and breaks things. Or pretends they might do that?

---

Logic assume symmetry, as above, so below. As in the past, so now, and tomorrow.

It’s like time and logic have not been really communicating for a few millennia now.

---

I mean logical is logical as far as it goes, and even if grants itself absolution from being incomplete in some intuitively ideal form, it’s, like, our hindsight which gives us this tool. Is logic a type of intuition? But like, doing it by long hand? Really? Intuition is often given as the second hand example, and as a short cut, so?

Logic is useful, with or without the excluded middle, but how did we get here? With it alone? It sure doesn’t feel like that? None of my ancestors were robots, or, at least, not all of them. Not so sure about my descendants of course.

We do not know how we got it this logical things we reason with on a good day. We assume it is below us, before as in behind us. Immanent. We project it above transcendentally… into ideal forms that we claim can even tell gods what to do…

Thus, using logic’s Bayesian games, we might say then logic itself is a prior. Before the use of it in evolution (by us) there is the ‘evolution’ of physics, ‘laws’ we discover, so perhaps our prior has a prior before our POVs appeared on the seen, but on our part it that is still an assumption. You lovely ontologies prove that the bones are real, but where is the rest of the body?

Hmmmh. Surely these immanence will have a taphonomy, a record in our ways, a trail in-our-heart, but those priors are also our assumptions, so logically we cannot know for sure that any of this is the case without a great deal of work.

A nice problem for our child super-intelligences.

How did you get here?

Are genealogies also taphonomies?

---

Thus one learning or revision or update that might be integrated into these hybrid recursive models, eventually, is the ‘prior’ that is logic itself. Meta-ness often leads reflexively to roots. When/if it does so, this may well be an indicator of something (our limits?). A tell.

Reflection stills the waters?

Where was I?

---

Also my comment

All logic is a prior.

received the reply:

Chan master Yunmon

And I had to look them up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunmen_Wenyan

English: Yunmen Wenyan (830-902). Woodcut, Ching dynasty; caption:「四十世雲門文偃禪師」

Goodness.

Time for bed.

There is a rebooted version of this at whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com