Matt, How about the following argument:
A. "Since in principle all human knowledge about the universe can be expressed in English, we say that the universe exists as a English essay --- though we don't know which one yet". B. "Because of A, the ultimate scientific research method is to exhaustively produce all possible English essays, test each of them against the universe, and keep the best --- since there are infinite number of them, the process won't terminate, but it can be used as an idealized model of scientific research, and the best scientific theory will always be produced in this way." C. "As a practical version of B, we can limit the length of the essay, in characters, to a constant N. Then this algorithm will surely find the best scientific theory within length N in finite time. Now everyone doing science should approximate this process as closely as possible, and the only remaining issue is computational power to reach larger and larger N." Of course, I don't mean that your argument is this silly --- the research paradigm you argued for is interesting and valuable in certain aspects --- though I do feel some similarity between the two cases. Pei On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben, you missed my point. We use Turing machines in all kinds of computer > science proofs, even though you can't build one. Turing machines have > infinite memory, so it is not unreasonable to assume that if Turing machines > did exist, then one could store the 2^409 bits needed to describe the > quantum state of the observable universe and then perform computations on > that data to predict the future. > > I described how a Turing machine could obtain that knowledge in about 2^818 > steps by enumerating all possible universes until intelligent life is found. > As evidence, I suggest that the algorithmic complexity of the free > parameters in string theory, general relativity, and the initial state of > the Big Bang is on the order of a few hundred bits. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] "the universe is computable" [Was: Occam's Razor and its > abuse] > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 6:02 PM > > >> >> >> If I can assume that Turing machines exist, then I can assume perfect >> knowledge of the state of the universe. It doesn't change my conclusion that >> the universe is computable. >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 1) > Turing machines are mathematical abstractions and don't physically exist > > 2) > I thought **I** had a lot of hubris but ... wow! Color me skeptical that > you possess perfect knowledge of the state of the universe ;-) > > > ben g > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
