by godelski | 2025-10-13 21:06:46+00:00
> I don't think the premise that everything is a proxy is right.

I said every measurement. That is a key word.

I know we're operating at a level that most people never encounter, but you cannot in fact measure a meter. You can use a reference tool like a ruler to try to measure distance which is calibrated. But that's a proxy. You aren't measuring a meter, you're measuring with a tool that is estimating a meter. You can get really precise and use a laser. But now you're actually doing a time of flight measurement, where a laser is bouncing off of something and you're measuring the time it takes to come back. Technically you're always getting 2x the measurement but either way you're actually not measuring distance you're measuring a light impulse (which is going to have units like candles or watts) and timing it, which we then convert those units to meters. You can continue this further to even recognize the limits of each of those estimates and this is an important factor if you're trying to determine the sensitivity (and thus error) of your device.

So I think you really aren't understanding this point. There is no possible way you can directly measure even the most fundamental scientific units (your best chance is going to probably be a mole but quantum mechanics is going to fuck you up).

> The problem with proxies is they're misaligned. The problem with components is they're incomplete.

If you pay close attention to what I'm talking about then you might find that these aren't as different as you think they are.

> If you could enumerate all of the components and target them all then you'd have a way out of Goodhart's law.

Which is my point. It isn't just that you can't because they are abstract, you can't because the physical limits of the universe prevent you to in even the non-abstract cases.

I am 100% behind you in that we should better define what we're trying to measure. But this is no different than talking about measuring something with higher precision. Our example above moved from a physical reference device to a laser and a stopwatch. That's a pretty dramatic shift, right? Uses completely different mechanisms. So abstract what you're thinking just a little so we can generalize the concept. I think if you do then we'll be on the same page.

> In many cases

I think you misunderstood my point here. Those were rhetorical questions and the last sentence tells you why I used them. They were not questions I needed answering. Frankly, I believe something similar is happening throughout our conversation since you are frequently trying to answer questions that don't need answering and telling me things which I have even directly acknowledged. It's creating a weird situation where I don't know how to answer because I don't know how you'll interpret what I'm saying. You seem to think that I'm disagreeing with you on everything and that just isn't true. For the most part I do agree. But to get you on the same level as me I need you to be addressing why these things are happening. Keep asking why until you don't know. That exists at some depth, right? It's true for everyone since we're not omniscient gods. My conclusion certainly isn't all comprehensive, but it does find this interesting and critical part where we run into something you would probably be less surprised about if you looked at my name.