Welcome back to the 1st Law Newsletter - Friday Edition.

In this email:

• What is a good explanation?

• Be more > Do more

• Transcending the language barrier

Explaining a good explanation

Defining what a good explanation is is no easy task. Most people can intuitively explain things... or at least we think we can, but how well do you really understand the world? I'm sure we have all been stumped by a kid who just keeps asking why? Briefly, a good explanation must be:

• better than all previous explanations

• from hard fought knowledge

• hard to vary

• falsifiable

• has reach/ large scope

To expand; if there are rival explanations, the mere existence of two possible explanations means that there is no best. If there was a clear best, it would stand alone and the others would have been superseded. Thus, a good explanation is better than all previous explanations.

A good explanation must consist of hard fought knowledge. Knowledge creation requires creativity, experiment and interpretation, and is hard to come by and change once we have it. For that reason, it always subject to improvement. Importantly, the best explanation must meet all criticism we have at the moment. And once we have a 'hard' to come by explanation from hard fought knowledge, it is difficult to vary and improve upon unless new knowledge is created or discovered.

Further, if we are not explaining something falsifiable, it is a useless explanation for we cannot prove its truth one way or the other. Lastly, a good explanation must have reach. We will not care about the explanation if it only defines a narrow and niche circumstance.

For example, classic Newtonian physics was a good explanation that lasted for centuries before we came up with quantum mechanics, a better explanation of how the world works.

Ideas from a conversation between Naval Ravikant and David Deutsch.

Be more > Do more

Colonel John Boyd (1927 - 1997) was one of the greatest American pilots and military strategists of the 20th century. However, above all he is remembered for exemplifying the philosophy of doing more rather than being more. Being productive, not just a sycophant. There are two paths according to colonel Boyd:

“To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?” - John Boyd

The reason that these are mutually exclusive is that true candor is rare in big organizations. If you choose to be somebody, you will often find yourself chasing wealth, salary or a promotion rather than achievement. While real accomplishment and honesty in decisions can only happen when your ideas and judgement are your own, and not guided by a necessary future approval of a supervisor or superior.

Impressing others is very different than being impressive. The best path to change the system is to exist beyond the system’s incentive structure. Staying technical as long as possible and having less formal responsibility allows you to work on projects that matter and avoid bureaucratic duties. Sometimes you must suffer in silence in order to be the person you want to be, and often, there will be no recognition for that.

The problem with this path of achievement over recognition is that it will not be rich with monetary compensation. Be warned, to be truly independent, one must be very wealthy or reduce their needs to zero.

Ideas from Resilient Mind Podcast and this article by Matt Cavanaugh.

Quote I Want To Share

The way each language works encourages a certain way of being. Different languages have words that cannot be directedly translated. This is one reason why cultures and customs differ.

If you want to create something that transcends languages and cultures, you will have to go beyond your native language and into the realm of the symbolic - a universal tongue that can cross all borders and barriers.

Thanks for reading!

Lucas