Shifting this thread to a more appropriate topic. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Rob Freeman <chaotic.langu...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:33 PM > Subject: Re: [agi] Hey, looks like the goertzel is hiring... > To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > I'm disappointed you don't address my points James. You just double > down that there needs to be some framework for learning, and that > nested stacks might be one such constraint. If I "double down" on 2+2=4, please understand that it is because I like a sure bet. Did you perhaps instead mean that I *re-asserted an obvious point* which disappointed you because: A) I would insult your intelligence rather than seeing that what you were saying was not in conflict with the obvious and B) failed to pick up on the nuanced point you were making that was not so obvious ? ... BTW just noticed your "Combinatorial Hierarchy, Computational > Irreducibility and other things that just don't matter..." thread. > Perhaps that thread is a better location to discuss this. Were you > positing in that thread that all of maths and physics might be > emergent on combinatorial hierarchies? Were you saying yes, but it > doesn't matter to the practice of AGI, because for physics we can't > find the combinatorial basis, and in practice we can find top down > heuristics which work well enough? Almost but not quite. My point is that even if we can find the ultimate deterministic algorithm for the universe (ie: its "combinatorial basis"), it's virtually certain we can't execute that deterministic algorithm to predict things in a deterministic manner. We're almost without exception resorting to statistical dynamics to predict things. People who bring "computational complexity" into this are stating the obvious, again, but in such a manner as to confuse the reality of the natural sciences which is that we some how manage to muddle through despite the fact that one level's intractable computational complexity is another level's tractable computational complexity because we learn how to abstract and live with the resulting inaccuracies. Well, maybe for language a) we can't find top down heuristics which > work well enough and b) we don't need to, because for language a > combinatorial basis is actually sitting right there for us, manifest, > in (sequences of) text. The origin of the Combinatorial Hierarchy thence ANPA was the Cambridge Language Research Unit <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bastin>. I suspect this was one of many offshoots of the Colossus project's cryptographic research. This, by the way, is one reason I suspect that there has been so much resistance to Algorithmic Information as causal model selection. Imagine if the Catholic Church had been able to suppress the ideas of the scientific method while keeping them alive in house. PS: I know I've disappointed you yet again for not engaging directly your line of inquiry. Just be assured that my failure to do so is not because I in any way discount what you are doing -- hence I'm not "doubling down" on some *opposing* line of thought -- I'm just not prepared to defend Granger's work as much as I am prepared to encourage you to take up your line of thought directly with him and his school of thought. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Teaac2c1a9c4f4ce3-M35e33add840c38e4404c1040 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
