Hacker News Reader

Comment by usgroup | Hacker News Reader

Exciting times. The philosophical ramifications of the syntax/semantics distinction is not something people think much about in the main. However, due to GPT et al they will do soon :)

More to the point, consistency will improve accuracy in so far as inconsistency is sometimes the cause for inaccuracy. However, being consistent is an extremely low bar. On a basic level even consistency is a problem in natural language where so much depends on usage -- it is near impossible to determine whether sentences are actually negations of each other in the majority of possible cases. But the real problem is truth assignment to valid sentences else we could all just speak Lojban and be done with untruth forever.

View on HN

> syntax/semantics distinction

Reminds me of this riff on Clarke's third law I read somewhere: "Sufficiently advanced syntax is indistinguishable from semantics".

Whether one agrees to it or not, it may serve to spark an interesting discussion in the right environment.

> "Sufficiently advanced syntax is indistinguishable from semantics”

I hadn’t heard this before, but this is why mathematics works:

A sufficiently advanced symbolic manipulation (math) is “indistinguishable” from the semantics of some phenomenon — like gravitation.

Except the math doesn't exert an actual force on you. You won't feel the pull of the math if the symbols describe the conditions for a black hole. Your surroundings will remain the same.

> Except the math doesn't exert an actual force on you.

Because the math on the page doesn't have the logical relationships with your environment that defines gravity, it will only have those logical relationships with other mathematical objects described in the same system on the page.

If you could project the mathematical structure from the page back into the environment, then the gravity would be felt. This is why simulated systems are those systems, but only within the simulated environment.

> If you could project the mathematical structure from the page back into the environment

That would be magic. And it assumes reality is mathematical or logical as opposed to those being descriptive human languages. We also don't know everything about gravity or spacetime (particularly in black holes), so our math is incomplete.

> That would be magic

Yes, which is why attempting to dismiss the notion that gravity is mathematical by stating that math on a page doesn't exert a force on you is not a valid argument.

> And it assumes reality is mathematical or logical as opposed to those being descriptive human languages

Let's run an experiment: propose a universe in which conjunction, disjunction, negation or implication are violated. Do the properties of such a universe have anything in common with our own? If our reality necessarily preserves these properties, how could you sensibly argue that reality is not logical?

My surroundings don’t remain the same:

The fact that mathematics is accurately replicating the semantics of gravitation is why we got to the moon — that model was projected back into reality as the rocket’s trajectory; via a computer directly mediating the translation of model into rocket parameters.

And it worked.

The rockets are what propelled the spacecraft, not the math. But anyway, our math of black holes isn't generating black holes in the lab or the classroom.

Another way to look at it is that the fact that the rocket moved at all was due to the rockets. The fact that those rockets propelled the spacecraft into lunar orbit and then back to the landing zone on earth was due to the math.

The rocket sequence was a direct result of the electronic model executing — and so the timing and hence flight path was determined by that gravitational model.

The rockets are the mechanism of projecting that mathematical model back into physical change: but where you end up depends on which model you’re projecting.

Semantics don't either.

If you can express the semantics of a black hole on paper you don't feel the pull of that either.

"sufficiently advanced compression/encoding is indistinguishable from encryption"

like QR codes.. they're encrypted, but the secret key is widely available: it's the source code that decodes the graphic

Reply on news.ycombinator.com