Godel might muse that even a system with its head up its ass cannot know itself to completion.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 8:43 AM James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > What would Godel say about a NOT gate with its input connected to its > output? > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:28 PM Quan Tesla <quantes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Gödel's incompleteness theorum still wins this argument. However, what >> really happens in unseen space remains fraught with possibility. The >> question remains: how exactly is this relevant to AGI? >> >> In transition, energy is always "lost" to externalities. Excellent design >> would limit such losses to not impact negatively on internal functionality. >> E.g., Losses can be recycled for reuse, and so on. It all depends on the >> relevance of the dynamical boundary that was either set, or which emerged. >> >> Even so, the "lossy" argument should be finite. As a system, its >> boundaries of argument should also be maintained. This remains true for all >> systems, even systems of systems. As such, it's more a function of a design >> decision, than an incomplete argument. >> On 12 Nov 2021 20:41, "James Bowery" <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> While these examples may sound edgy, often these incompleteness's are >>>> where there is much to be learned. Exploring may help some understandings >>>> especially, as James pointed out, that “AIXI = AIT⊗SDT = Algorithmic >>>> Information Theory ⊗ Sequential Decision Theory". >>>> >>> >>> AIXI *reduced* the parameter count of an AGI with unlimited computation >>> but limited information. Before you jump all over the fact that it is >>> necessary to limit the computation, we still need to talk about the >>> remaining open parameters in AIXI. In AIT the open parameter is: "Which >>> Turing Machine?" In SDT the open parameter is "Which Utility Function?" >>> >>> To answer "Which Turing Machine?" I've intuited an approach that Matt >>> reduced to a pretty restrictive descriptive space of NOR DCGs. This >>> reduces what might be thought of as the descriptive space of Turing >>> Machines to what Matt formalized. It doesn't get rid of _all_ of the >>> unknowns in that space, but it is far more rigorous than the descriptive >>> space of all UTMs. There is a _lot_ of work to be done with this approach >>> and advances will, IMNSHO, have immediate and profound application in logic >>> design. >>> >>> To answer "Which Utility Function?" we must become a lot more >>> philosophically serious than has heretofore been the case in all the >>> brouhaha about "friendly AI". >>> >>> Hutter's paper "A Complete Theory of Everything (will be subjective) >>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5434>" is his (still incomplete) approach >>> to addressing what you refer to as "these incompleteness's". >>> >>> Now, having said all that: Yes, the measurement level of abstraction >>> does get into the economics of computation resources and, yes, it would be >>> nice to find approaches that obviate all of the above "incompletenesses", >>> but you must do better than to redefine the words "lossy" and "lossless" >>> compression as that merely hobbles an existing approach to these >>> incompletenesses while at the same time threatening to hobble their >>> practical applications by confusing the meanings of words. >>> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-M7d84e953de50694ccc67f44a> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-M2ceca09b8d49970ead03666b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
