28 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
28 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 001 Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
## Primary hypothesis
|
|
|
|
The same deterministic signal distinctions that were irrelevant in Experiment 000 will become understandable and generative when they directly determine a visible object's trajectory.
|
|
|
|
## Competing explanations
|
|
|
|
1. Embodied consequence makes timing, direction, accumulation, and cycles worth reasoning about.
|
|
2. Motion improves legibility but produces only a conventional finite routing puzzle.
|
|
3. The signal language remains too limited to sustain curiosity regardless of presentation.
|
|
4. Direct physical manipulation would be enjoyable, but graph construction adds too much indirection or work.
|
|
5. A cared-about world is still missing; a puck-like familiar is only an animated oscilloscope.
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- The player changes a route after it already completes, because another trajectory seems worth creating.
|
|
- Visible motion causes a prediction, surprise, revised mental model, and another test.
|
|
- The player deliberately exploits periodicity, phase, storage, or recirculation.
|
|
- The player chooses another constellation without being prompted by progression rewards.
|
|
|
|
## Weak or negative evidence
|
|
|
|
- Completion is fast and followed by the same sense that nothing remains.
|
|
- The familiar is treated as a cursor and the network as awkward controls.
|
|
- Random or noisy output eventually succeeds without understanding.
|
|
- A single universal controller handles every constellation with trivial changes.
|
|
|