Visual Babble and Prune

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z7b67r7MhshovHLwG/visual-babble-and-prune

> How do human beings produce knowledge? When we describe rational thought processes, we tend to think of them as essentially deterministic, deliberate, and algorithmic. After some self-examination, however, I’ve come to think that my process is closer to babbling many random strings and later filtering by a heuristic. > -alkjashIntroduction I want to describe my first and so far only experience inventing a math problem. It’s probably not an original or important problem. But I think there is value in describing the origins of ideas, especially when those ideas are actionable. Here is the problem:

Draw a square bounding box of side length N. One at a time, drop a square of side length L, oriented identically to the bounding box, at a random location such that it is entirely enclosed within the bounding box, until two of the dropped squares overlap. What is the relationship between the average total area of the dropped squares (excluding the last one dropped), and L^2/​N^2?I did some analysis on this problem. As L increases, each square fills more area (increasing L^2/​N^2), but the chance of an overlap increases as well (decreasing L^2/​N^2). Until L^2/​N^/​2 = 0.25, the relationship closely follows a power law. After that point, the relationship is linear, as it becomes impossible to fit more than one square in the bounding box, meaning that the only remaining factor is the increasing size of the single dropped square. It would be interesting to work out why this relationship holds, but my primary goal here is to describe how I formed this problem. Circumstances I am studying math, CS, and chemistry at the undergraduate level (as a post-bacc student). I was not passionate about mathematics until a couple years ago, and do not consider myself an unusually talented math student compared to my classmates. I came up with this problem while smoking weed and listening to my girlfriend play the violin on the porch. I often notice that weed can make me ask more expansive or deep questions, follow a train of thought with more focus, and allow me to explore a vague idea that I might otherwise dismiss. It also dramatically enhances my ability to visualize. I have a poor sensory imagination. But when I smoke weed, I can see and manipulate mental pictures and audio with much greater vividness and sustained attention. Developing the Idea Babble In this case, I started imagining kaleidoscopic, geometric nonsense. Triangles fanning out from some nebulous origin point. Lines waving in symmetry. Then I got the idea, I don’t know from where, to imagine dropping a cube from the sky down onto the mental "ground." I imagined stacking them, or having them fall in adjacent columns. There was a pleasure in being able to visualize this. At some point, I had the idea that this could suggest some sort of math problem. Then I imagined a lot more cubes falling, stacking up, at all different orientations, and realized they would have gaps in between them. And I wondered about how much space they would all fill up. To make that make sense, I realized there would need to be some sort of container, like a crate or barrel. From that point, it became more obvious that the problem would be about the relationship of the size of the cubes to the size of the container. Prune But this problem seemed complex. So I simplified it to 2D shapes in a 2D bounding box. And to make it as simple as possible, I made the orientations all identical, and made the shapes and bounding box squares. This last step took place when I explained the problem to my girlfriend. At this point, the problem had crystallized into a form I could solve. And of course, it could be extended by solving for other shapes, allowing the orientation to be random, and many other constraint changes. What Was Important About The Babble? One aspect of the babbling that I think was important is that it started with an atomic rule: dropping cubes from the sky. Such a rule is simple, but can have complex implications when additional constraints are added. Perhaps this is akin to introducing a piece of evidence to an argument, a new rule to game, or a character’s decision in a story. Another important aspect is the pleasure I took in free exploration of that first atomic rule. It was fun to visualize, and it felt pleasurable to just continue exploring the visualization, without having any particular goal in mind, or pressure to create any particular form of output. Rather than forcing myself toward the goal of defining a math problem, I was just allowing further ideas to bubble up, exploring the problem environment: this imaginary world of falling cubes. The weed helped. I don’t think sober me would have found the dropped-cubes idea interesting to think about. A third is the ability to mentally manipulate the materials in an easy and focused way. If I’d had to use some clunky computer software to play around with cubes, I don’t think it would have been as easy to do, and it would have been more distracting. If I’d tried to do it in my head, I wouldn’t have been able to visualize it or focus. I think these three factors are fundamental to what alkjash calls "babble." Can Deliberate Practice Increase The Manipulability And Pleasure Of Babble? From *Creativity in Science through Visualization (*1965): The hypothesis is advanced that the creative persons appear to have stumbled onto and then developed to a high degree of perfection the ability to visualize—almost hallucinate—in the area in which they are creative. And their visualizations seem to be of a sort that lend themselves to easy manipulation in the thinking process. This is illustrated by reports from many of the great inventors of the past and it is easy to demonstrate that individuals differ enormously in the kind and degree of their ability to think in such manipulatable visualizations.What’s happened since then? The top-cited scholarly document referencing this paper is Visual Thinking by Rudolph Arnheim, published in 1969. He also published A Plea For Visual Thinking in 1980. Perception and thinking are treated by textbooks of psychology in separate chapters. The senses are said to gather information about the outer world; thinking is said to process that information. Thinking emerges from this approach as the "higher," more respectable function, to which consequently education assigns most of the school hours and most of the credit. The exercise of the senses is a mere recreation, relegated to spare time. It is left to the playful practice of the arts and music and is readily dispensed with when a tight budget calls for economy.How does visualization work? There are two neurologically distinct visual pathways: the object pathway, which processes color and shape; and the spatial pathway, which processes relationships and transformations in space. There seems to be a trade-off between them, as people strong in one tend to be weak in the other. but it’s unclear to what degree this is due to nature or nurture. Some approaches to improving visualization ability include:

Comment

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z7b67r7MhshovHLwG/visual-babble-and-prune?commentId=MCuYJKNNwEJzpPTD5

Arnheim mirrors: https://​​www.gwern.net/​​docs/​​iq/​​1965-walkup.pdf https://​​www.gwern.net/​​docs/​​psychology/​​1969-arnheim-visualthinking.pdf https://​​www.gwern.net/​​docs/​​psychology/​​1980-arnheim.pdf

It’s worth noting that an emphasis on spatial reasoning & visualization ability was one of the reasons behind SMPY choosing to use SAT-M for screening, as one of the theses is that, after general intelligence, visuospatial reasoning (as opposed to the more academically-prized glibness & verbal ability) may be the next most important requirement for major STEM achievement.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z7b67r7MhshovHLwG/visual-babble-and-prune?commentId=KeApMHjzrTMbpyzfv

++ for experimenting around with this! Enjoyed reading your experience.