timelets

Виктор Вахштайн очень хорошо объясняет влияние философии Витггенштейна в современной (пост-немецкой) социологии.




Удивительно хорошо объясняет. До чего же все-таки мудацкая страна Россия, что такие люди, как он, живут в эмиграции да еще и с клеймом иностранного агента. Стране реально повезло, что талантливый человек в ней родился, но общество не способно воспользоваться своим везением.

“It’s an old question in the philosophy of physics. People have been talking about it since Fermat first formulated it in the 1600s; Planck wrote volumes about it. The thing is, while the common formulation of physical laws is causal, a variational principle like Fermat’s is purposive, almost teleological.
...
Well, if I can speak anthropomorphic-projectionally, the light has to examine the possible paths and compute how long each one would take.” He plucked the last potsticker from the serving dish.
“And to do that,” I continued, “the ray of light has to know just where its destination is. If the destination were somewhere else, the fastest path would be different.

Gary nodded again. “That’s right; the notion of a ‘fastest path’ is meaningless unless there’s a destination specified. And computing how long a given path takes also requires information about what lies along that path, like where the water’s surface is.

I kept staring at the diagram on the napkin. “And the light ray has to know all that ahead of time, before it starts moving, right?”

...
That day when Gary first explained Fermat’s principle to me, he had mentioned that almost every physical law could be stated as a variational principle. Yet when humans thought about physical laws, they preferred to work with them in their causal formulation. I could understand that: the physical attributes that humans found intuitive, like kinetic energy or acceleration, were all properties of an object at a given moment in time. And these were conducive to a chronological, causal interpretation of events: one moment growing out of another, causes and effects creating a chain reaction that grew from past to future.

In contrast, the physical attributes that the heptapods found intuitive, like “action” or those other things defined by integrals, were meaningful only over a period of time. And these were conducive
to a teleological interpretation of events: by viewing events over a period of time, one recognized that there was a requirement that had to be satisfied, a goal of minimizing or maximizing. And one had to know the initial and final states to meet that goal; one needed knowledge of the effects before the causes could be initiated.”

-- Ted Chiang. “Stories of Your Life and Others.”

To understand LLMs and maybe other types of AI, one has to think like hectapods from Ted Chiang's story. Category theory is a bit like that too. First, you have to see roughly the entire diagram, e.g. topos or Kan extension, then think sequentially through its arrows second.

Thomas Nagel's philosophy fits right in too (Mind and Cosmos). AI models _are_ teleological. They know everything there's to know.

How is it that half of America looks at Donald Trump and doesn’t find him morally repellent? He lies, cheats, steals, betrays, and behaves cruelly and corruptly, and more than 70 million Americans find him, at the very least, morally acceptable. Some even see him as heroic, admirable, and wonderful. What has brought us to this state of moral numbness?
...
the thinking of Alasdair MacIntyre, the great moral philosopher
...
As MacIntyre put it, “The choice between the ethical and the aesthetic is not the choice between good and evil, it is the choice whether or not to choose in terms of good and evil.”
...
How do people make decisions about the right thing to do if they are not embedded in a permanent moral order? They do whatever feels right to them at the moment. MacIntyre called this “emotivism,” the idea that “all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.” Emotivism feels natural within capitalist societies, because capitalism is an economic system built around individual consumer preferences.

One of the problems with living in a society with no shared moral order is that we have no way to settle arguments. We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarization. People use self-righteous words to try to get their way, but instead of engaging in moral argument, what they’re really doing is using the language of morality to enforce their own preferences.

If no one can persuade anybody about right and wrong, then there are only two ways to settle our differences: coercion or manipulation.
...
Trump speaks the languages we moderns can understand. The language of preference: I want. The language of power: I have the leverage. The languages of self, of gain, of acquisition. He treats even the presidency itself as a piece of personal property he can use to get what he wants. As the political theorist Yuval Levin has observed, there are a lot of people, and Trump is one of them, who don’t seek to be formed by the institutions they enter. They seek instead to use those institutions as a stage to perform on, to display their wonderful selves.

-- David Brooks, 7/8/2025, the Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/trump-administration-supporters-good/683441/

Works well with Turchin's metaphor of musical chairs in politics/power.

I find it really productive to think about different types of AI/ML using one of Whitehead's approaches. For example, he describes three elements of any event: physical prehension (objective data), cognitive prehension (eternal possibilities), decision. Implicitly, when we talk about an agent, the fourth element is realization, i.e. action on the decision. (upd. he also has _subjective aim_, which is the target of the decision).

Each of these elements carries modes of interaction that are fundamentally different for humans and ML. First of all, physical prehension, i.e. awareness of the world, involves radically different sensory methods. Furthermore, while human awareness relies on analog biological, evolutionary fixed senses, ML can access digital non-biological signals. Further, its awareness can be retrained on new data gathering methods. Moreover, various types of ML can be trained and retrained on new senses just like we train dogs for tracking. The possibilities for creating new types of world awareness are mind boggling.

Etc, etc, etc.

Also, Whitehead's theology is highly applicable to this subject, but I'd need more time to study and think about it.

upd: transparency of prehension would be a good topic on which to "compare and contrast"

А. Воробей недавно написал, что разрешает себе писать о политике только если, как минимум, час позанимался физикой или математикой. https://avva.dreamwidth.org/3576932.html

Это хорошее правило. Для меня этот час будет включать философию — начал читать книгу Isabelle Stengers "Thinking with Whitehead: free and wild creation of concepts."

Here's an interesting way to make a connection between Peirce's pragmatism/logic and the category theory



Link to the paper https://ncatlab.org/davidcorfield/files/Peirce200225.pdf