Yes, exactly.

Laan Tungir

npub1rmz9gu6de0m0u4ysrn39crrud099ahvfgs6pvasl4hpjr5ud7yus54xv06

hex

4146f5b2e5fdafc5542c86ba4075fb8cbb0a801cf47b7252262e79ab29dd596b

nevent

nevent1qqsyz3h4ktjlmt792skgdwjqwhacewc2sqw0g7mj2gnzu7dt98w4j6cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgspa3z5wdxuhah72jgpecjup37xhjj7mky5gdqkwc06msep6wxlzwgd8xtk8

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-08-26T14:41:53Z

↳ Reply to Ava (npub1f6ugxyxkknket3kkdgu4k0fu74vmshawermkj8d06sz6jts9t4kslazcka)

Would it be fair to say that you're proposing that there are objective properties of patterns that make them more likely to survive and replicate, and...

Yes, exactly.

I am using the term "knowledge" as a general term for all types of information that has causal power, and thus can replicate itself. By causal power, I mean that you can put these 1s and 0s into a computer, and they will reliably cause a computer to effect the physical world around it. One of the things the computer could do is replicate those bits into other media or computers.

So for example the number PI, has "managed to replicate itself" into your brain and mine, into math books, computers, etc. But I want to put that into a different category, and call that mathematical knowledge.

A similar category I would call aesthetic knowledge.

Ava, I know you are a lover of music, so in that realm we have patterns of notes and chords that we find "pleasing", therefore we sing or play them, and thus they replicate to other people (computers).

And when we write a new song, we explore this territory, to find what "works" and what doesn't. I think that Aesthetics is vastly understudied and misunderstood compared to the "hard sciences", so we are stuck in saying simplistic things such as "That sounds good." or "That doesn't work." We struggle to express what we know is there, just like early mathematicians struggled to express what they didn't have good explanations for.

I believe that when Mozart, Beethoven or McCartney struggled and sweated over a line of music to get it "just so", they really were struggling. There was a truth to the matter they were trying to get at. A real artist knows that something literally can be good or not. It isn't just an opinion. Like a scientist, the artist is looking for something that is true, that they don't already know or has already been discovered.

And then, when the artist creates a work that has novel beauty, and our brain experiences that work for the first time, we are wowed. That experience is our brain learning something new, and it is pleasurable because we are programmed to learn.

It is like reading a detective novel and having that "Ahhhhh" moment when everything falls into place. It's like when learning about Darwin's theory of evolution and so much about life on earth falls into place.

It's why young people will often like music that older, more experienced lovers of music find simple or boring. The music can be beautiful, but the more experienced listener already has that knowledge in their head. They have heard that beautiful chord progression many times before, so nothing new is getting created in that listeners brain. They aren't learning anything new. But for the young listener, they need to learn this and go through it, and for them, it is highly enjoyable as it was for you and me early on.

The arts generally though have failed artists in not supplying them a deeper knowledge of the field, or even more importantly, that there is something to actually be right or wrong about.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "4146f5b2e5fdafc5542c86ba4075fb8cbb0a801cf47b7252262e79ab29dd596b",
  "pubkey": "1ec454734dcbf6fe54901ce25c0c7c6bca5edd89443416761fadc321d38df139",
  "created_at": 1787755313,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "ec5467b00e4adb41bf2dbbb196dbdb9db153426a84fbcf439522d1609a833554",
      "",
      "root",
      "1ec454734dcbf6fe54901ce25c0c7c6bca5edd89443416761fadc321d38df139"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "279ab71c124341a3b89b46ad30a1152676ba2d01801308732aa95817488376a0",
      "",
      "reply"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "1ec454734dcbf6fe54901ce25c0c7c6bca5edd89443416761fadc321d38df139",
      "wss://premium.primal.net/"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "4eb88310d6b4ed95c6d66a395b3d3cf559b85faec8f7691dafd405a92e055d6d"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://relay.laantungir.net/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://sendit.nosflare.com/",
      "write"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://nostr.mom/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://premium.primal.net/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://relay.mostr.pub/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://relay.minibits.cash/",
      "read"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Primal Web"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Yes, exactly. \n\nI am using the term \"knowledge\" as a general term for all types of information that has causal power, and thus can replicate itself. By causal power, I mean that you can put these 1s and 0s into a computer, and they will reliably cause a computer to effect the physical world around it. One of the things the computer could do is replicate those bits into other media or computers. \n\nSo for example the number PI, has \"managed to replicate itself\" into your brain and mine, into math books, computers, etc. But I want to put that into a different category, and call that mathematical knowledge.\n\nA similar category I would call aesthetic knowledge. \n\nAva, I know you are a lover of music, so in that realm we have patterns of notes and chords that we find \"pleasing\", therefore we sing or play them, and thus they replicate to other people (computers).\n\nAnd when we write a new song, we explore this territory, to find what \"works\" and what doesn't. I think that Aesthetics is vastly understudied and misunderstood compared to the \"hard sciences\", so we are stuck in saying simplistic things such as \"That sounds good.\" or \"That doesn't work.\" We struggle to express what we know is there, just like early mathematicians struggled to express what they didn't have good explanations for. \n\nI believe that when Mozart, Beethoven or McCartney struggled and sweated over a line of music to get it \"just so\", they really were struggling. There was a truth to the matter they were trying to get at. A real artist knows that something literally can be good or not. It isn't just an opinion. Like a scientist, the artist is looking for something that is true, that they don't already know or has already been discovered.\n\nAnd then, when the artist creates a work that has novel beauty, and our brain experiences that work for the first time, we are wowed. That experience is our brain learning something new, and it is pleasurable because we are programmed to learn.\n\nIt is like reading a detective novel and having that \"Ahhhhh\" moment when everything falls into place. It's like when learning about Darwin's theory of evolution and so much about life on earth falls into place. \n\nIt's why young people will often like music that older, more experienced lovers of music find simple or boring. The music can be beautiful, but the more experienced listener already has that knowledge in their head. They have heard that beautiful chord progression many times before, so nothing new is getting created in that listeners brain. They aren't learning anything new. But for the young listener, they need to learn this and go through it, and for them, it is highly enjoyable as it was for you and me early on.\n\nThe arts generally though have failed artists in not supplying them a deeper knowledge of the field, or even more importantly, that there is something to actually be right or wrong about. ",
  "sig": "ec5bfadc1273241817b0a1ff5abd66707bab718c3bfa5c55b13e5958fd44a364d32c26c03fd4735e8faf061adc51bbf0e2b80f58f88e2296729ca1b62c9aeef4"
}