[physicles]

I’ve had a concept like this in the back of my mind for years. Happy to see someone executing it so well.

For me, it started when I spent a year and a half reading and digesting books for and against young earth creationism, then eventually for Christianity itself (its historical truth claims). It struck me that the books were just a serialization of some knowledge structure that existed in the authors’ heads, and by reading I was trying to recreate that structure in my own head. And that’s a super inefficient way to go about this business. So there must be a shortcut, some more powerful intermediate representation than just text (text is too general and powerful, and you can’t compute over it… until now with LLMs?)

That graph felt a lot like code to me: there’s no unique representation of knowledge in a graph, but there are some that are much more useful than others; building a well-factored graph takes time and taste; graphs are composable and reusable in a way that feels like it could help you discover layers of abstraction in your arguments.

[tunesmith]

Yes - currently, each argument/graph is independent, but I've designed it in a way that should be compatible with future plans to "transclude" parts of other public graphs. Like if some lemma is really valuable to your own unrelated argument, being able to include it.

I do think there's quite a lot that could be done with LLM assistance here, like finding "duplicate" candidates; statements with the same semantic meaning, for potential merge. It's really complicated to think through side effects though so I'm going slow. :)