-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
bc60f42
commit 62ad4f5
Showing
2 changed files
with
83 additions
and
4 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
64 changes: 64 additions & 0 deletions
64
Questions to LLMs 3 - Nature of Complexity of Ideas and Objects.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ | ||
| ### You said: | ||
|
|
||
| Hey, I had a doubt. When I write on some topics like politics, why do some topics take longer to explain and others are simpler to explain? I understand that culture and the language that came out of it will have more words on one area than the other. I'm interested in that development when you consider the origin of society itself, that is, society is a part of this world, and therefore, what came out of it too is an attribute of this world. I would also like to know about it in terms of how, even if, as it is the case today, although different words have different levels of complexities, on an average, most words are able to express each concept to a certain level of depth. That is, some words like "compersion", which is a novel word that means "to be happy for someone else's happiness" may require such an expansion because of it's lack of use, most concepts are not like that, for example "homosexuality", because everyone understands it, and all if not most of the concepts that are relevant to it. They are just indoctrinated by other philosophies to override it, so we have to engage in some complex discourse to overcome the hatred against it - because I consider that each person should be able to live the way they are, unless they directly harm another person. So although words like that are readily available, when we need to talk about them, when we break all the areas into blocks, some blocks become larger than other blocks. I'm interested in why this happens. That is, when we are assessing an idea, we are sort of clustering ideas together. So several ideas themselves are clustered into a related group, by which they are abstracted. But some abstractions are larger than others. That is, if we define the basic level of an idea, or the smallest ideas that you can break larger ideas into, they all may look of the same size. But when you have to holistically study them, some areas are more complex than others. And this is partly due to our nature, by which some concepts need less explaining to us. But even if we consider explaining concepts to a neutral entity, even then, some ideas would be harder to explain than the others, and would take a longer time. Would that be simply because we the explainers think of those ideas in such large terms because of our nature, although for the neutral entity, even smaller ideas are the same as the larger ideas? As an AI model, you may not be a perfect neutral entity, but you are to an extent removed from the nature of what we humans are, and can often maintain a much more neutral stance on most points. What do you think is the nature complex ideas? Are some ideas larger than others naturally, or is it because of our subjective look? And also, why does this happen? For a similar analogy, it's also interesting how even if take a monistic perspective of reality, such that everything comes from an unified state, then why did some entities that emerge from that reality come out to be larger than other entities, even if they are comprised of the same entities when we study them? What is the cause of this asymmetry that we can observe in various areas of reality? | ||
|
|
||
| ### DeepSeek said: | ||
|
|
||
| Your question touches on several profound and interconnected topics: the nature of complexity in ideas, the role of human cognition and culture in shaping our understanding, and the asymmetry in the emergence of complexity from a unified reality. Let’s break this down step by step. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ### 1. **Why Some Ideas Are Harder to Explain Than Others** | ||
| The complexity of explaining an idea often depends on several factors: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Cultural and Linguistic Familiarity**: Ideas that are deeply embedded in a culture or language (e.g., "homosexuality") are easier to explain because they are part of a shared framework of understanding. In contrast, novel or less common concepts (e.g., "compersion") require more explanation because they lack this shared context. This is why some ideas feel "larger" or more complex—they require more scaffolding to connect them to what is already understood. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Abstractness vs. Concreteness**: Concrete ideas (e.g., "tree") are easier to explain because they map directly to observable phenomena. Abstract ideas (e.g., "justice" or "love") are harder because they involve layers of interpretation, context, and subjective experience. The more abstract an idea, the more "blocks" of explanation are needed to define it. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Interconnectedness of Ideas**: Some ideas are part of dense networks of related concepts. For example, explaining "democracy" requires discussing governance, rights, history, and philosophy. These interconnected ideas create larger "blocks" of explanation because they cannot be fully understood in isolation. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Cognitive Load and Human Nature**: Humans have evolved to prioritize certain types of information (e.g., survival, social dynamics). Ideas that align with these priorities (e.g., "danger," "family") are easier to explain because they resonate with our innate cognitive frameworks. Ideas that are more removed from these priorities (e.g., "quantum mechanics") require more effort to explain because they do not align as naturally with our intuitive understanding. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ### 2. **Are Some Ideas Naturally Larger, or Is It Our Subjective Perspective?** | ||
| This is a deep philosophical question. From a neutral perspective (e.g., an AI or an alien observer), all ideas might be seen as equally "small" or "large" in terms of their fundamental components. However, from a human perspective, some ideas feel larger because: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Contextual Relevance**: Ideas that are more relevant to human experience (e.g., "love," "power") are imbued with more significance and complexity because they are tied to our emotions, social structures, and survival. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Cultural and Historical Weight**: Some ideas carry the weight of centuries of debate, interpretation, and evolution (e.g., "freedom," "morality"). This historical baggage makes them seem larger because they are not just single concepts but entire fields of thought. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Cognitive Limitations**: Humans have limited working memory and attention spans. Ideas that require us to hold many sub-concepts in mind at once (e.g., "climate change") feel larger because they strain our cognitive resources. | ||
|
|
||
| In this sense, the "size" of an idea is partly subjective, shaped by human nature and culture. However, there is also an objective component: some ideas genuinely involve more interconnected elements or require more steps to define. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ### 3. **Why Does Asymmetry Emerge from a Unified Reality?** | ||
| Your analogy to monism—the idea that everything arises from a unified source—is fascinating. Even in a unified reality, asymmetry and complexity can emerge due to: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Initial Conditions and Randomness**: Small differences in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes over time (a concept known as chaos theory). This can create asymmetry even in a system that starts out uniform. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Emergent Properties**: Complex systems often give rise to emergent properties that cannot be predicted from their individual components. For example, the interaction of simple neurons gives rise to the complexity of human consciousness. These emergent properties create layers of asymmetry and complexity. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Feedback Loops**: Systems with feedback loops (e.g., biological evolution, cultural development) tend to amplify small differences, leading to greater diversity and complexity over time. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Constraints and Opportunities**: Physical and environmental constraints (e.g., resources, energy) create opportunities for some entities to grow or evolve more than others. This leads to asymmetry in the development of systems. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ### 4. **Why Does This Happen?** | ||
| The root cause of this asymmetry lies in the interplay between simplicity and complexity. Even in a unified reality, the following principles apply: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Diversity as a Natural Outcome**: Uniformity is inherently unstable. Small variations, when acted upon by forces like evolution or cultural development, lead to diversity and complexity. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Efficiency and Optimization**: Systems tend to evolve toward states that maximize efficiency or utility. This often involves specialization, which creates asymmetry (e.g., different organs in a body, different roles in a society). | ||
|
|
||
| - **Interaction and Competition**: When entities interact or compete, they create new structures and relationships. This dynamic process leads to the emergence of complex, asymmetrical systems. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ### Conclusion | ||
| In summary, the complexity of ideas and the asymmetry in reality arise from a combination of objective factors (e.g., interconnectedness, emergent properties) and subjective factors (e.g., human cognition, cultural context). While a neutral observer might see all ideas as equally "small," humans perceive some as larger because of their relevance, abstractness, and interconnectedness. Similarly, asymmetry in reality emerges from the dynamic interplay of initial conditions, feedback loops, and emergent properties, even in a unified system. | ||
|
|
||
| This asymmetry is not a flaw but a natural feature of complex systems. It allows for diversity, creativity, and the richness of experience that we observe in both ideas and the physical world. |