I personally think that the split-octonions[1] hold promise for physics. The subset of the split-octonions where the i, j, k, and l components are 0 have a metric that is similar to that of Minkowski space[2].
Are you serious? That's a terrible idea. Every vote should counted equally as everyone should get to represent their own interests. This is the point of democracy. Taking rights away from those you view as "undesirables" is wrong.
Getting the right score for a person is an open problem.
But knowledge and intelligence should be incentivised.
The fact that most people voting don't read politicians programs should show how autistic our system is.
It has criminal consequences on humanity sustainability and well being.
> But knowledge and intelligence should be incentivised.
They already are, though that can be improved by decreasing the role of heritable wealth and the disadvantages of poverty through better taxation and social support policies.
Voting is the wrong place to incentivize it, even if you could without first having improved the degree to which it is incentivized in the rest of society.
> The fact that most people voting don't read politicians programs should show how autistic our system is.
Using autistic as an insult here is inappropriate on multiple levels; also, I'd argue that it's perhaps jist rational, since politicians actions are only rarely usefully related to their written programs, and there are much more accessible ways of getting information that is much better at predicting their behavior in office.
Using autistic as an insult here is inappropriate on multiple levels;
It was not meant to be in the litteral sense, I was meaning retarded which indeed real autists are not.
Most insults/pejorative words are not understood literally usually but well you're probably right.
since politicians actions are only rarely usefully related to their written programs
This is just too excessive, hyperbolic.
If you want to quantify it, there you go:
https://trumptracker.github.io/much more accessible ways of getting information that is much better at predicting their behavior in office.
Enlighten me then, where is such a thing?
On the surface I like the idea of the knowledgeable and intelligent having more say, but I do not think it would work in practice. It is misleading to frame it as there being a "correct" weighing out there and that we just need to find it. Any non-equal metric used for weighing an individual's vote will be gamed and exploited. And there is the possibility of creating a class divide of intellectuals if the metric is intelligence.
I believe a safer solution is to overhaul education. This way we get both the equality of democracy and the better decision making of an educated populace.
It's an open problem
It's nice to see this is at least recognized.
All the proposed solutions are an invitation to or an implementation of tyranny.
Such a categorical claim (universal Quantifier!) from someone that probably has zero background in voting theory and not enough in epistemology e.g cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
You make such a powerful claim but honestly, in all sincerity:
All the proposed solutions
How many alternatives are you aware? 1? Dictature ?
Two maybe ?
You don't know what you don't know and me neither but at least I know that I don't know what I don't know.
The best solution to me is the one I co-designed with my brother, it is not public and will only be when I'll have a mature software implementation.
But public solutions that are still an improvement would be for exemple an epistocracy semi-direct.
I can explain it to you if you're open to the possibility of changing your mind about "representative" democracy being the least worst governing system.
There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do.
No.
I'll expand my own take on this thought, borrowing a mathematical analogy I read recently.
Take the real and complex numbers. The real numbers have the nice property that they are easy to order since they form a line. Given any two you can tell which is larger. When you go up the complex numbers you lose this obvious ordering, you can define a new ordering, but it is no longer trivial since you are comparing points on a plane.
Now, some people see complex numbers as an extension of the real numbers, but it would be more accurate to call them a generalization of the real numbers. The real numbers are a subset of the complex numbers that satisfy the property of having this obvious ordering.
This again extends to the complex numbers and quaternions. A quaternion is a point on a 4D plane that does not necessarily satisfy commutativity, AKA ab != ba. The subset of quaternions that do satisfy commutativity are the complex numbers.
Every time you go up a level you lose an axiom, which is an assumption on how things work for that system. In a sense an axiom is a useful limitation that gives a certain structure to things. So what if there are 0 axioms? This would mean everything is possible, no limitations. 2 + 2 = 5. Obviously everything being possible is not useful.
Now how does this apply to physics? Physical laws are our axioms. But what if there are actually no physical laws, we are just witnessing the subset of "everything" that appears to have structure? If we are only capable of understanding things that are rational, we would be inherently unable to process events that are irrational. We would project this irrational observation down to the rational subset that we can make sense of. Let me finish with an example.
Take a uniform quantum superposition. It has an equally random chance of being measured 0 or 1. There is no hidden information determining this, it is truly random. This is irrational because there seems like there should be a reason for one final outcome being measured over the other due to our familiarity with cause-and-effect, but this ultimately appears to have no cause. We project this phenomena down to the rational and explain it the best we can with quantum states and probability.
Thank you for the feedback. That is a very valid complaint and one that is hard to avoid because the complex numbers are basically derived by trying to solve equations like x^2 + 1 = 0. It may be a bit more geometrically intuitive to describe complex numbers as a system of making 2D vectors work with multiplication and division which I sort of touch on later. The explanation is there to provide a brief overview and support the following visualizations, but I will see if I can improve that section.
I didnt really intend it as personal feedback for your post, its as much about my failure to understand as it is the explanations. If its useful to you then great, but on the flip side, dont take it too much to heart :)
I am curious if this has any relation to saccades. It feels to me like it would be easier to retain attention on a moving object than a stationary one.
It's not necessarily a waste of time. The poster says they're from Hong Kong, English could be their second language. They may not realize the mistake and if no one points it out they may never have the chance to learn.
Fantastic paper, glad to see it is so powerful! I'm just graduating as a computer scientist and independently came up with a very similar idea. Nice to see it validated, especially with it solving previously unsolved problems. Called the latent space of the VAE "Mental Space", having similar purpose to the Vision Model.
Have you done any experiments feeding the cell states into the Controller in addition to the latent vector and hidden states? If so how did it perform?
Thanks! We did try feeding both the "cell" of the LSTM in addition to the hidden state of the LSTM and the latent vector into the controller, and this works better. We discussed this in the Appendix section.
I would still encourage you to pursue your idea, since there are still lots of limitations in this model (discussed in the paper), and a lot of work remains to be done to solve more difficult problems.
