Notes on Computation

Joel Gustafson / Thoughts

“Computation” is a slippery, mathematical idea. In the same way that we only glimpse algorithmic complexity by the shadows it casts on time and space, we only interact with computation through little projections like “Turing machines” or “Python scripts” that are just tiny peepholes into the raw, fluid information-space beyond.

From this obscured view, it’s easy to become nearsighted: to equate “code” with “text in a file” or “programming” with “writing JavaScript in an IDE” without seeing the dizzying mathematical scope of the power we play with so casually.

I intended this piece to be a sweeping manifesto. I set out to vindicate Lisp as - empirically - the most pure, righteous encoding of computation that humanity has ever discovered, and to strike down with furious anger those who seek to marginalize it as “obtuse” or “unintuitive”.

But it turns out that reality is complicated, and things rarely work to cleanly justify any radical ideology. So if, at the end of this, you feel a vague sense of frustration with the world, but without any particularly strong direction or conviction, that’s because I feel the same way.

Shannon’s Counting Argument

“Naming a thing gives you power over it.”

Patrick Henry Winston

Every function over binary inputs can be modeled with a circuit of primitive logic gates, like AND/OR/NOT or NAND. Some functions, like a bitwise AND, are really easy to model with circuits, and can be constructed with a number of gates that is linear in the size of the input. Other functions are a little less friendly, and need a polynomial number of gates to model.

But there are a lot of possible functions. Even just considering boolean operations (that output only one bit), there are O(2^2^n) distinct mappings over n inputs. This absolutely dwarfs the O(2^n) functions you can model with n logic gates, which means that there just isn’t space for every function to have a polynomial-sized circuit. In fact, the vast majority of functions have to be content with enormous, exponentially huge circuits.

What’s weird is that even though we know that almost all boolean functions require exponentially large circuits, we don’t know what any of them are. Nothing that we have a name for - no point in concept-space that humanity has ever touched - has been proved to require an exponentially big circuit, even NP-complete problems like SAT or EXPTIME-complete problems like Go! This is weird, and it suggests that our sample of ideas is very biased towards simple ones.

The same counting argument applies to programming languages. While Lisp may be touted as pure revelation of functional enlightenment that encapsulates the true essence of computing, the disappointing reality is that the space of computation is just too big for any encoding - even lambda calculus - to efficiently capture anything more than an exponentially tiny fraction of it. Every language is good at succinctly describing a small set of ideas, but there are just too many things that you could want to do with a computer for any language to be good at expressing all of them.

Rather tautologically, we don’t have any examples of things we don’t know to describe. But the fact that they have to exist - and that there are so many of them - should bother us. It’s eerie: it doesn’t feel like we’re missing out, but the vast majority of possible “things” (functions, transformations, ideas) just haven’t been thought of, ever. It’s possible that they haven’t been thought of because they’re inherently nonsensical, random contortions of math that wouldn’t be useful, but I think it’s because we don’t have the right language to understand their significance. There might be a language in which AND is exponentially difficult to describe, but a brand new set of thoughts that elude us now become trivial. There could be world-changing, paradigm-shifting ideas hiding in the exponential shadows! We have the Turing-complete keys to unlock the entire computation-space, but we only see the polynomial tip of the computational iceberg So why don’t we explore?

“Most creativity is a transition from one context into another where things are more surprising. There’s an element of surprise, and especially in science, there is often laughter that goes along with the “Aha.” Art also has this element. Our job is to remind us that there are more contexts than the one that we’re in — the one that we think is reality.”

Alan Kay

Goodhart's Law

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

Charles Goodhart

The SAT was momentarily a good test (this is the Scholastic Aptitude Test for now, not Satisfiability). Its purpose was to evaluate “college readiness”, and it was good at it. Even though the content of the test, like obscure vocabulary knowledge, wasn’t directly related to college readiness itself, the two were so closely correlated that they became interchangeable for evaluation purposes.

But! Abstractions leak, and systems interfere with each other. Quickly, students began to buy practice books and started memorizing obscure vocabulary directly, without the trouble of readying for college beforehand. Those convenient proxies that used to be correlated with college readiness became gameable, and the thing that the SAT really tested stopped being “college readiness” and became “proficiency at taking SAT tests”.

At first glance, ignoring the exponential majority of the “things” in the computation-verse might seem insignificant - after all, we’ve carefully designed our programming languages to expose everything imaginably useful through simple, human-readable metaphors like Objects or Functions. In fact, we’ve honed and sharpened these languages over dozens of iterations to be really good at manipulating functions and objects and classes and strings and APIs.

But in the same way that the SAT mutated the system it was designed to evaluate through pressure from college admissions, I think that the computer science field is no longer about exploring computation, but rather about getting better and faster at the things with which we’re already familiar, through commercial incentives. While this is fine and admirable and even necessary for practical, real-world implementation, I think we’ve completely lost sight of the scope of the ideas that could be waiting to be discovered. But who needs new ideas when there’s SEO and user engagement to optimize? Why would we need new languages when the ones we have are perfectly good at dark UI patterns and addictive conditioning?

“The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think that you know what you’re doing. Because once you think you know what you’re doing, you stop looking around for other ways of doing things.”

Bret Victor

Propagation of Constraints

“I don’t know who discovered water, but it wasn’t a fish”

Marshall McLuhan

Constraints inspire creativity and give structure to ideas. Even if a universally expressive, unbiased programming language existed, it would likely be impossible to use. Perfection breeds paralysis.

“What if Pollock said, ‘You know what? I can’t paint anything, unless I know exactly why I’m doing it.’ What would have happened?”

“He never would have made a single mark.”

Ex Machina

In this sense, the languages that we have do a wonderful job of framing computation through structured models and metaphors that let us easily think inside preset “modes” and not have to create everything from a vacuum. We learn templates of problem-solving, like “objects” or “graph search” that we use as building blocks to compose and apply to any domain.

But if the most dangerous thought is to think you know what you’re doing, the second-most dangerous must be to think you know what something is, because then you stop looking around for other things that it could be.

What’s dangerous about some models is that, like a fish in water, we spend our entire lives immersed in them, and don’t realize that they’re just some of many possible models. This results in some constraints, born out of necessity in the implementation of some abstraction layer, that infect the mindset of the programmers and bubble up through higher layers of abstraction, long after the original need has faded from view.

“What is the most resilient parasite?”

“An idea.”


If Turing-completion is good for anything, we should be able to prune previous restrictions and become more flexible, yet relics of the constraints of lower levels are everywhere.

Code and data are separated only because of the physical distinction of circuits and the electricity that flows through them, but there’s no mathematical difference between information and a transformation thereof. Yet we’re still wiring static, compiled programs that are essentially glorified circuit schematics. Meanwhile, we haven’t needed keyboards since the invention of the touchscreen, but every interaction with a computer is still funneled through a ridiculously constricting, serialized text stream. There are millions of pixels in our screens, and we can make any of them do anything at any time, but their most common use is to display the same alphabet that has been around for millennium. We have the technology to create a fully dynamic creative medium, but we’re still writing static emails and reading dead, flat PDFs functionally identical to the paper that preceded them!

What’s wrong with us!?

The Art of New Ideas

One of the many surprises in the Lisp story is that it wasn’t designed as a programming language by some task force of academics. Instead, McCarthy dreamed it up as a notation for mathematical proofs - a syntax for statements that could be easily assigned Gödel numbers, and be evaluated reasonably simply by hand (a “proof” was an s-expression which, when evaluated, proved that the resultant value was a valid statement in the system). Compilers were thought to take years to build at the time, and McCarthy was shocked when a student implemented a simple evaluator on an actual computer in just a few days.

Lisp gave us first-class functions, continuations, and the idea of code as data - only one of which has now finally become mainstream. Is it any surprise that the “greatest single programming language ever designed” (Alan Kay) wasn’t actually designed, but rather discovered? That its throne as the “the most intelligent way to misuse a computer… [that] has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts” (Dijkstra) was born out of a happy accident in a mathematical vacuum? Lisp’s originality was built on math, not other languages (created “top-down”, not “bottom-up”, if you will), thereby breaking the circular obsession with refining existing ideas and escaping into the wild as its own truly unique thing.

This isn’t to say that Lisp is the ultimate programming language - far from it! Lisp suffers from the same counting argument as any other encoding. But it is a different language, which makes it good at a different set of things, and can teach us a different mindset about computation.

So the answer isn’t that everyone should use Lisp. Some people should - it’s certainly good for something - but Lisp is not the final answer. Instead, I think we need to place a stronger emphasis on new ideas, different ideas, even if they seem crazy, ridiculous, or flat-out stupid.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how incapable I am of generating a new idea. But I can’t imagine what a good, natively visual programming language looks like. I have trouble picturing things I’ve never seen before. Maybe, like any good programmer who can’t find a constructive solution, I should resort to a randomized algorithm, and hope that some randomly generated system can seed new perspectives. But I lose to the Aaronson Oracle more than 0.6 of the time. Maybe it’s all hopeless.

At any rate, we need to be more aware of the water around us, be less confident that we know what we’re doing, and listen more carefully for the next Lisp hiding around the corner. It’s possible that the world in 100 years could end up being a faster, more optimized, more connected, more user-engaged version of ours today. Humanity has endured much longer periods of stagnation in the past. Or it’s possible that it could be unimaginably, indescribably different. It’s up to us.

“The future doesn’t have to be an extension of the present”