and my vote goes to the pendulum as the starting metaphor.

Really you took the words out of my mouth.

Game theory bound to aggregates of pendulums.

Sound weird?

As flow increases through such an aggregate you will see emergent behavior.

This I Promise.

I would love to see such a construct in action.

http://rationalmechanisms.com/lexicon

AI cannot be programmed. To approach AI we need to provide an inorganic metabolism in which it can flourish.

There is no digital equivalent to organic intelligence, because “code” lacks Causal Constraints.

Nonetheless, we can use “gate” “bits” technology to mimic both the electro and chemical values passed around the brain.
For instance 128 bit pathways may be large enough to encapsulate meaningful analogs to the electrochemical metabolism of the brain. The micro processor can be simplified to add, compare, divert, aggregate, and create pathways when it is bound to each 128 bit aggregate.

Thank you

“Memento” is a problem when quantifying abstractions.
Maybe some mechanism for breadcrumbs would be helpful.

Knowing and experience?

I prefer the encapsulation: matching experience to capacity.

There is also the difficulty of recall and context.

Consider, if you will, polymorphic multi-behavioral containers. One can increase density through behavior by utilizing an orchestrated or polymorphic density.
There is a density “of kind”.

Consider, if you will, juxtaposing likedislike, these two are primary polymorphic multi-behavioral containers.
The density could become quickly overwhelming.

This is where I suspect a hierarchical statistical method might find useful expression.

Densities in “three dimensions”. Maybe sets of sets. I don’t know really just a method of building and behaving within what is built.
Query the query?

You may be suggesting that BTS simply measures DENSITY of opinion, because “the most surprising common answer” is another way of saying “unpredicted majority”. That’s a great point.

The strong version of arguing for AI and BTS is that it will allows us to know everything ASAP. The weak version suggests that a human with AI/BTS is more fit than one without it. I’m definitely undecided on the strong version and lean toward being “trapped” in a Memento type cycle. The weak version however is where i’d argue that our current Artificial Collective Intelligence of democracy, seniority, etc… is archaic and is putting limits on what is knowable, so we’re very far from achieving peak density as a civilization/specie.

I think our “disagreement” or potential discovery lies in the space between the weak and the strong versions. I don’t think we can make an assumption that density of opinion is 100% objective, so it’s isn’t a sufficient condition to reach full knowledge. I think emergence and evolution will still play a role at these levels. But don’t get me wrong, i think knowledge can grow by a few factors before we reach those levels. So the weak version is quite “strong” in absolute quantification.

I don’t know what a statistical metaphor means, I only know that it must exist.

Sample size is a speculative encapsulation. Density matters. To increase density you must increase the sample size. Then you must ask questions that exploit attribution – aka deviation. I suspect that statics’s untapped power lies in the most ignored of its capacities, the elucidation of deviations arising from lack of density.
A standard deviation is only a standard within a given density – misdiagnosis is abundant.