Ummm. It seems like you were/are saying then that because AIXI makes an
assumption limiting it's own applicability/proof (that it requires that the
environment be computable) and because AIXI can make some valid conclusions,
that that "suggests" that AIXI's limiting assumptions are true of the
universe. That simply doesn't work, dude, unless you have a very loose
inductive-type definition of "suggests" that is more suited for inference
control than anything like a logical proof.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no AGI
--- On Sat, 10/25/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that Occam's Razor works in the real world
> suggests that the
> physics of the universe is computable. Otherwise AIXI
> would not apply.
Hmmm. I don't get this. Occam's razor simply says
go with the simplest
explanation until forced to expand it and then only expand
it as necessary.
How does this suggest that the physics of the universe is
computable?
Or conversely, why and how would Occam's razor *not*
work in a universe
where the physics aren't computable.
The proof of AIXI assumes the environment is computable by a Turing
machine (possibly with a random element). I realize this is not a proof
that the universe is computable.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
