‘The Lie’, Sir Walter Raleigh http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1289.html

Also see the related work of ethnomethodologists (Garfinkel, Sacks) thought these are considerably more challenging. And here’s a story about an AI trying to use these ideas and others to reform the field.

Here’s my theory; whilst each mind indeed constructs its own narrative (story or idealized map of reality), the universe itself has its own narrative. Let me explain. Platonists consider mathematical objects to have objective reality. So let us take the Platonist line and see where it leads – and we also need to consider the insight of Kurt Godel, which was that mathematics can represent itself (aka Hofstadter ‘Strange Loop’)

If we regard sets and categories as high-level mathematical abstractions, we can view set/category theory as an objectively real ‘mathematical narrative’ about the lower-level mathematical objects e.g. collections, algebraic relations etc.

This is not a map / territory confusion on my part. Remember, set/category theory is a not a human invention, it’s objectively real (aka Plato). And remember, mathematics is self-referential (aka Godel). So here’s my big punch-line:

Set/Category Theory is a real story about mathematics that mathematics is ‘narrating’ to itself – mathematics is a living thing! The sets/categories are the script, the algebraic relations are the plot-lines, and the orderings (combinatoric collections) are the characters.

Admittedly, you may find this my most bizarre theory yet (hopefully a new Marc Geddes record for weirdness), but it shows that the idea of reality as pure narrative is coherent.

Do a few rays of dawn’s light (i.e. insights) now penetrate the eyelids of slumbering blog readers? And are we all destined to awake from our dream narratives at sunrise? (i.e. Singularity).

Heh, my thoughts exactly.

I don’t think it is true, but there is some truth to it. That is, there are many stories that can be told, and our choice of story has true underlying meaning. Robin’s story is one I like better than most. But he still presented it in a dramatized, story-like way. Thus, even his dislike for irrational stories was tinged by irrational storytelling.

I hope it was intentional, because that would be a cute touch. If it wasn’t, well, then it’s awesome in revealing how we are all affected by this bias, even those who claim to be against it.

Why? Do you place that much value on personal knowledge of other people?

Could it be that we put ourselves in boxes in order to be quickly and easily 90% understood by people who would not find it worthwhile to learn 100% or even 99% if that was required?

Certainly we should strive to see past the masks of people we see and interract with every day, but is piercing the veil of the hot dog vendor worth your time to do? Is it worth his time to share these facts with you, rather than playing his role for the next customer?

When you encounter another person, chances are that they will be 70% like every other person on the planet, 90% like others of their gender and culure, and 99% described by the small number of boxes you have for them. The 1% that makes them unique is important and personal, but not worth the time to share or remember. I’d go so far as to say that last 1% is where true intimacy happens. (Yes I pulled those numbers out of my butt, but you get the point).

What is the reward for doing this?