I would like to state a middle ground between the viewpoints cited in the email below:
It seems to me that if one had a man-made computer capable of computing all the astronically-large and planks-length-fine state information and computations that take place in all of reality at the level described by physics --- if we assummed that all the laws of physicse used were totally correct and complete --- that such a computer would be capable of simulating (given the limitations of the uncertainty principal) all of reality, including its higher levels of organization, such as, for example, the behavior of the human mind, popular culture, and stock markets. It is my believe that reality itself is such a computer, but is it not man-made, and our ability to control and understand its computations is limited. Since the above hypothisized man-made computer would be computing it "all," it would have no need for higher level generalizations, such as our understandings of biology, astronomy, geology, psychology, brain science, economics, culture, politics, etc. But if you are going to try to simulate such higher levels of reality's organization without such an all-knowing, all-understanding hypothetical computer, you are much more likely to have success if your computer takes advantages of models derived from experience in terms of generalities (i.e., simplifications, including some derived by Occam's Razor) described in, and derived from, higher levels of organization that are more relevant to the particular higher levels of reality that you want to simulate. Since it is my belief that it is impossible to make out of reality a computer that computes the complexity of reality even close to as fast or as thoroughly as reality itself, I think it is vital to the survival of humanity that we continue to use models which involve simplifications derived from levels of organization higher than those described by what is traditionally called "physics." Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] "the universe is computable" [Was: Occam's Razor and its abuse] On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So there are physicists who think in principle the stock market can >> be accurately predicated from quantum theory alone? I'd like to get a >> reference on that. ;-) > > Pei, I think a majority -- or at least a substantial plurality -- of > physicists think that. Really. > > ben Too bad --- they all should take a course in philosophy of science. Even if that is the case, I don't accept it as a reason to tolerant this opinion in AGI research. Pei ------------------------------------------- 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
