On 24 Oct 2012, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:58 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/23 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
On 10/22/2012 2:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:38:46PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Rusell,
>
> How does Schmidhuber consider the physicality of resources?
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
No. The concept doesn't enter consideration. What he considers is
that
the Great Programmer has finite (or perhaps bounded resources),
which
gives an additional boost to algorithms that run efficiently.
that´s the problem that I insist, has a natural solution
considering the computational needs of living beings under
natural selection, without resorting to a everithing-theory of
reality based of a UD algorithm, like the Schmidhuber one.
--
Dear Alberto,
My suspicion is that there does not exist a single global
computation of the behavior of living (or other) beings and that
"natural selection" is a local computation between each being and
its environment. We end up with a model where there are many
computations occurring concurrently and there is no single
computation that can dovetail all of them together such that a
picture of the universe can be considered as a single simulation
running on a single computer except for a very trivial case (where
the total universe is in a bound state and at maximum equilibrium).
Yes, that'`s also what I think. These computations are material,
in the sense that they are subject to limitation of resources
(nervous signal speeds, chemical equilibrion, diffusion of
hormones etc. So the bias toward a low kolmogorov complexity of an
habitable universe can be naturally deduced from that.
Natural selection is the mechanism for making discoveries,
individual life incorporate these discoveries, called adaptations.
A cat that jump to catch a fish has not discovered the laws of
newton, Instead, the evolution has found a way to modulate the
force exerted by the muscles according with how long the jump must
be, and depending on the weight of the cat (that is calibrated by
playing at at the early age).
But this technique depends on the lineality and continuity of the
law of newton for short distances. If the law of newton were more
complicated, that would not be possible. So a low complexity of
the macroscopical laws permit a low complexity and a low use of
resources of the living computers that deal with them, and a
faster dsicovery of adaptations by natural selection. But that
complexity has a upper limit; Lineality seems to be a requirement
for the operation of natural selection in the search for
adaptations.
http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/ockham-razor-and-genetic-algoritms-life.html
I kind of agree with all what you say here, and on the basic
philosophy. But I think that what you describe admits a more
general description, in which the laws of physics are themselves
selected by a process similar but more general than evolution. It
makes me think that life (and brains at some different level) is
what happen when a universal system mirrors itself. A universal
machine is a dynamical mirror, and life can develop once you put
the dynamical mirror in front of itself (again a case of
diagonalization). I think I follow your philosophy, but apply it in
arithmetic and/or computer science.
I envision also a kind of selection of the mind over the matter ,
since the most basic notion of existence implies and observer, that
is,a mind and a mind, in a universe where history has a meaning
(that discard boltzmann brains) , and hold a kind of intelligence
(since intelligence permits to make use of experience) impose very
strong antropic restrictions not only in the nature of the phisical
laws, as I said, but in the matematicity of them. With matematicity
i mean a reuse of the same simple structures at different levels of
reality. I mean that the most simple mathematical structures are
more represented in the structure of reality than
complicated ones, to minimize the complexity.
But aren't those all the same conclusions that would arise from
assuming that mathematics and physical laws are our inventions for
describing and reasoning about the world and they are simple because
that makes them understandable; they reflect our limited cognitive
ability to think about only a few things at a time. Notice that
physics, as it has become more mathematical and abstract, has left
more and more to contingency and the randomness of QM. So
physicists no longer propose to answer, "Why are there just eight
planets?" or "Why is there a Moon?"
Now I am just afraid, to talk frankly, that it looks like you have
a reductionist conception of numbers and machines, which does not
take into account the discovery of the universal machine (by the
Post-Church-Kleene-Turing thesis) which makes you miss that your
philosophy might be the natural philosophy of all universal
numbers. (I probably exaggerate my point for attempt to be short).
I do not discard your point of view. the difference is that I go
the easy path, from inside to outside, in a cartesian process, may
call it, So my interest is centered not in a simple production
principle, and explain the human experience from it, but to go from
consciousness (with some leaps of faith) out to ascertain the
nature of what is known with the aid of some hopefully testable
hypotheses. To go in the opposite direction i need a kind of
understanding and inspiration that I don´t have. I perhaps need a
kind of leap in imagination to see the big picture, but my natural
selectionist bias force me to think that there would be no
intellgence without purpose, and no purpose without environmnetal
pressure, that is impossible without an environment, and a
environment impossible without a preexistent matter, with
preexistent laws. So a universal machine seems to me the
inmaterial equivalent of a boltzman brain, made with no purpose,
for no purpose and this devoid of meaning, with little to
understand about it...
If you're going to explain purpose, meaning, qualia, thoughts,...you
need to start from something simpler that does not assume those
things. Bruno proposes to explain matter as well, so he has to
start without matter.
Actually I deduce the absence of matter from comp. If we bet on comp,
we have no other choice than to explain matter from dream coherence
notions. We can add matter, but it would be like invisible horses, and
vision is a first person experience and it relies on the infinities of
computation in arithmetic.
If you are with John Clark, and me, on comp, then you have to show a
flaw in UDA if you disagree with this. At least Clark tells us where
he stops in UDA (step 3, too bad nobody understands his point, which
seems an obvious confusion of 1 and 3-views).
I think you did follow the UDA up to step seven. Is it really the step
8 which still makes problem? It is a bit more subtle, some people have
some difficulty there. Let us discuss them, or find where we disagree
at least.
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle, but
I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then. If
you find the time, I am please if you can elaborate. I think Russell
too is not yet entirely convinced.
Bruno
Brent
The web of this world is woven of Necessity and Chance. Woe to
him who has accustomed himself from his youth up to find
something necessary in what is capricious, and who would ascribe
something like reason to Chance and make a religion of
surrendering to it.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Unless some restrictions of resources, pruposes etc are aplied,
that is a selection process.....
We can already talk with the "Löbian numbers". I already recognize
myself. I already don't take them as zombie. It does not matter
that the talk admits a local atemporal description. Arithmetic is
full of life and dreams
And if we limit ourselves, non constructively (it is the price) to
the *arithmetically sound* Löbian numbers, we get an arithmetical
interpretation of a platonist conception of reality. Decidable on
its propositional parts.
In that conception physics is the border of the universal mind,
which by assuming comp, might be the mind of the universal machine.
Can that philosophy helps to solve the 1p measure problems, or
guide us in the "human" interpretation of the arithmetical
interpretation? Hard to say. Plausible. There will be different
methods, and insight.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
