Re: Max and FPI
He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw Brent Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: Continued... On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think logic can study reality, only truncated maps of maps of reality. Whatever is reality, it might not depend on what you think it is, or is not. Of course, but it might not depend on logic or computation either. It depends on the theory we assume. I do. That's why I insist that comp asks for a non trivial leap of faith, and we are warned that comp might be refuted. Without the empirical evidences for the quantum and MWI, I am not sure I would dare to defend the study of comp. It *is* socking and counter- intuitive. It's not shocking at all to me. For me it's old news. Not to me, and I don't take anything for granted. I assume comp, and this includes elementary arithmetic, enough to explain Church's thesis. I don't take arithmetic for granted. Then you have no tools to assert non-comp. Why not? I assert sense. Computation need not even exist in theory. Computation arises intentionally as an organizational feature - just as it does on Earth: to keep track of things and events. Question begging. If an explanation falls out of the hypothesis, why is it question begging? Because it does not justify at all why comp has to be wrong. It justifies only that comp might be wrong, and is unbelievable, but this is already derivable from comp. What is shocking and counter-intuitive is that the nature of consciousness is such that there is a very good reason why consciousness is forever incompatible with empirical evidence. Again, you talk like Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism (and a solipsist!), also a great guy in topology. Well, the easiest way to attribute a person to a machine (theaetetus) provides S4Grz, (the logic of []p p) which talks like Brouwer too, and identify somehow truth and knowledge, and makes consciousness out of any 3p description. Truth and knowledge, []p p...these things are meaningless to me. All I care about is what cares. Truth and knowledge care for nothing. I was beginning to suspect this. But then why still argue? Because consciousness is what cares. Truth or knowledge of consciousness only can make sense of this. Consciousness includes knowledge of itself by definition. No, that self-consciousness. And you are right on this, again. It *is* a theorem of comp. I hope you try to follow the modal thread, as it will help you to put sense on that last sentence. But there is some amount of work to do, and you have to be willing to change your mode of arguing, going from your []p p to the usual scientific and 3p []p. I think that it's you who should try paddling away from the shallow waters of modal logic and truth and surf the big waves of sense. Why do you judge something shallow, and at the same time confess not studying this. It makes you look rather foolish, and wipe o I'm not trying to be an expert in sailing to China from Italy. I'm trying to show whoever is interested that there is another continent or two in the way. The other continents has been found, and you don't need to invoke sense other than at the metalevel. If not, what you do is the persisting hulman error to invoke God in science. It cannot work.It makes science into pseudo-religion. It has nothing to do with God or religion for me. I said that your use of sense is like the use of god, in the gap-god type of explanation. You use sense to forbid the study of some theory. You justify don't ask by invoking a private feature. It's about grounding physics and mathematics in aesthetic sense. This does help explain ideas of God and religion, but that is completely optional. I find your fear and prejudice toward this possibility interesting. I am open to the possibility, so you are wrong. But I wait for evidences or justification, but the way you proceed confirms it is only a prejudice, which unfortunately makes you not studying the domain. So you are just stucking yourself in some (negative) personal opinion. That is hardly convincing. Sorry. You introduce many relevant differences and nuances, but apply them only to humans, and forget them despite I try to explain that machines already do these distinctions. But you don't listen to them invoking that you have already made your opinion, so ... well, you build your own mental prison. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Tegmark and UDA
Aguirre - In a usual first-order phase transition, bubbles nucleate, expand, overlap, and percolate so that the phase transition completes and releases a certain amount of latent heat (depending upon the details of the potential). I didn't realise before that cosmology was to closely related to making tea! Although maybe I should have... Adams - The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian motion producer (say, a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:49:48 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: Continued... On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think logic can study reality, only truncated maps of maps of reality. Whatever is reality, it might not depend on what you think it is, or is not. Of course, but it might not depend on logic or computation either. It depends on the theory we assume. You don't see the double standard there? I do. That's why I insist that comp asks for a non trivial leap of faith, and we are warned that comp might be refuted. Without the empirical evidences for the quantum and MWI, I am not sure I would dare to defend the study of comp. It *is* socking and counter-intuitive. It's not shocking at all to me. For me it's old news. Not to me, and I don't take anything for granted. I assume comp, and this includes elementary arithmetic, enough to explain Church's thesis. I don't take arithmetic for granted. Then you have no tools to assert non-comp. Why not? I assert sense. Computation need not even exist in theory. Computation arises intentionally as an organizational feature - just as it does on Earth: to keep track of things and events. Question begging. If an explanation falls out of the hypothesis, why is it question begging? Because it does not justify at all why comp has to be wrong. It justifies only that comp might be wrong, and is unbelievable, but this is already derivable from comp. The fact that there may be no way to justify that comp has to be wrong does not mean that comp is in fact not wrong. The fact that it is unbelievable is not as persuasive as the numerous specific examples where our expectations from comp do not match, and indeed are counter-factual. What is shocking and counter-intuitive is that the nature of consciousness is such that there is a very good reason why consciousness is forever incompatible with empirical evidence. Again, you talk like Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism (and a solipsist!), also a great guy in topology. Well, the easiest way to attribute a person to a machine (theaetetus) provides S4Grz, (the logic of []p p) which talks like Brouwer too, and identify somehow truth and knowledge, and makes consciousness out of any 3p description. Truth and knowledge, []p p...these things are meaningless to me. All I care about is what cares. Truth and knowledge care for nothing. I was beginning to suspect this. But then why still argue? Because consciousness is what cares. Truth or knowledge of consciousness only can make sense of this. Consciousness includes knowledge of itself by definition. No, that self-consciousness. That would be knowledge of the self. You don't need to know that you are 'you' to know that there is an experience 'here'. And you are right on this, again. It *is* a theorem of comp. I hope you try to follow the modal thread, as it will help you to put sense on that last sentence. But there is some amount of work to do, and you have to be willing to change your mode of arguing, going from your []p p to the usual scientific and 3p []p. I think that it's you who should try paddling away from the shallow waters of modal logic and truth and surf the big waves of sense. Why do you judge something shallow, and at the same time confess not studying this. It makes you look rather foolish, and wipe o I'm not trying to be an expert in sailing to China from Italy. I'm trying to show whoever is interested that there is another continent or two in the way. The other continents has been found, and you don't need to invoke sense other than at the metalevel. If not, what you do is the persisting hulman error to invoke God in science. It cannot work.It makes science into pseudo-religion. It has nothing to do with God or religion for me. I said that your use of sense is like the use of god, in the gap-god type of explanation. You use sense to forbid the study of some theory. You justify don't ask by invoking a private feature. I don't forbid the study of anything. I applaud AI research, including Strong AI Singularity variety. I'm not one of those who sees interviews with Kurzweil or Moravec (who I met once, btw), and says 'Deluded fools'. To the contrary, I think it's a little sad maybe that they will probably not see their ideas fulfilled, but as long as they are not demanding people to say Yes to the doctor, I have no problem. My problem is if we want to discover the deep truth about awareness, we need the most perfect form of what I call a philosophical vacuum to begin with. We
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
One might note that at the end of Chapter Three (Proving Darwin) Greg has the caveat Metabiology in its present form cannot address thinking and consciousness, fascinating those these be. (page 21). I do not see any reason why plants should not be included. If one has the inspiration to imagine that the act of reproduction *is like* a computation (math and philosophy different) and abstract simply that we humans reproduce and if one thought that all of algorithmic complexity in metabiology (as a subect) was derived from a difference in that biotic potential in different lineages then... metabiology applied might not be a part of the/an algorithmic theory of everything yet different computations that emerge in different lineages would be differentiable. A machine cannot know what computations support it but propagtion of species differences is a different kind of monkey at the qwerty...I would think and be conscious of...There are really no physical laws that support pure metabiology (only generalized matheatical function through arbitrary points) and the step to physical lawys engineer-able in applied metabiology is actually a bit more than would be for non preserved force propagations. These kinds of contained algorithmic sets are only thus a part of what a theory of everything etc would contain but it might be more somatically correct even if not currently inclusive of any kind of plant or animal. What is contained and what can exist for longer times are different things. On Friday, March 21, 2014 5:26:20 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:18, bs...@cornell.edu javascript: wrote: Are you still interested in talking about metabiology? http://www.axiompanbiog.com/Pages/Metabiology.aspx On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:10:42 PM UTC-5, thermo wrote: Chaitin is currently drafting some attemps on metabiology and biological evolution of creativity. I read the latest: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~*chaitin*/*darwin*.pdf I found it very interesting in it's simplicity. Strong features: - Abstract and theorems can be proved. - Includes algorithmic mutations. - Fitness is general enough to enable infinite evolution. Weak features: - Some oracles are used. - Biological features such as replication, environment were removed favoring more abstract concepts. - Evolution is only associated with mathematical creativity, IA? Can someone can explain how this theory is related to Algorithmic Theories of Everything? It *is* an algorithmic theory of everything, but like digital physics, it still assumes a brain-mind identity thesis, which does not work when you assume computationalism in the cognitive science. It avoids the comp mind body problem, which forces us to derive the core of the physical laws from a statistics on all computations. It cannot work because it implies comp, and comp implies that reality is a view from inside the space of all computations, and this is not entirely reductible to an algorithm. Like Wolfram, they still don't take into account that a machine cannot know which computation support it, and can know she is distributed in many computation. They miss the Everett aspect of arithmetic or computer science. I would say in a nutshell. Bruno Cheers, José. -- A los hombres fuertes les pasa lo que a los barriletes; se elevan cuando es mayor el viento que se opone a su ascenso. http://www.sabidurias.com/cita/es/9410/jose-ingenieros/a-los-hombres-fuertes-les-pasa-lo-que-a-los-barriletes-se-elevan-cuando-es-mayor-el-viento-que-se-opone-a-su-ascensoJosé Ingenieros http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ingenieros(1877.1925) *thermo* http://www.mechpoet.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
The use of oracles to see if a programme will halt strikes me as unnecessary. Why not define fitness as producing a suitable output within a suitable time (a real organism that always did the most optimal thing, but only did so slowly, wouldn't survive very long). So one could simply run each programme and see if it produces a result in a specified time, or use output length / time as the fitness (so a fast less accurate result might still be better - consider a real organism again!). Once the time gets too long that no possible output could be fitter than the one you already have, abort the mutated programme and declare it unfit. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
I should have said that's only for the ones that output numbers rather than computable functions etc. On 24 March 2014 13:15, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The use of oracles to see if a programme will halt strikes me as unnecessary. Why not define fitness as producing a suitable output within a suitable time (a real organism that always did the most optimal thing, but only did so slowly, wouldn't survive very long). So one could simply run each programme and see if it produces a result in a specified time, or use output length / time as the fitness (so a fast less accurate result might still be better - consider a real organism again!). Once the time gets too long that no possible output could be fitter than the one you already have, abort the mutated programme and declare it unfit. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:15:54PM +1300, LizR wrote: The use of oracles to see if a programme will halt strikes me as unnecessary. Why not define fitness as producing a suitable output within a suitable time (a real organism that always did the most optimal thing, but only did so slowly, wouldn't survive very long). So one could simply run each programme and see if it produces a result in a specified time, or use output length / time as the fitness (so a fast less accurate result might still be better - consider a real organism again!). Once the time gets too long that no possible output could be fitter than the one you already have, abort the mutated programme and declare it unfit. Or better still, perform multi-objective optimisation by way of a Pareto front. That way fast, but inaccurate agents don't dominate slow and deliberate ones. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
On 24 March 2014 15:52, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Or better still, perform multi-objective optimisation by way of a Pareto front. That way fast, but inaccurate agents don't dominate slow and deliberate ones. The multiple objectives being speed of execution and length of output? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
*Is* DNA a universal programming language? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Chaitin's Metabiology
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote: /Is/ DNA a universal programming language? I'm not sure what a universal programming language means. Just 1s and 0s are enough language. I think you probably mean to ask is whether a cell is a universal computer with DNA as the program. I don't know if there's been a formal proof but it almost certainly is. Making a universal computer is pretty easy. Wolfram's rule 110 produces a universal computer in one dimension with only two colors and nearest neighbor rules. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Max and FPI
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. We got the classic intuition buster argument. You know, screw intuition because it evolved in the sub Saharan savannah to help us lob spears. God forbid that it evolved in sub Saharan society to help spot hogwash. Apart from the fact that he confuses Tau for intuition, even before QM and Relativity came along, intuition has never been the arbiter of right and wrong. There have always been counter intuitive facts, there is nothing new about the current situation. Theres no more reason to distrust intuition now that there has been before. Its only ever been a guide and as such should be trusted as much now as it ever was. And that was never entirely. Worst of all though was that I wanted to hear about his level 4 multiverse but he didn't address it except to comment that it was a little nutty. But really, in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start. Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:05:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Max and FPI From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw Brent Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
