Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

This - "These are languages for computation, for expressing algorithms, not for mathematical reasoning. They are universal programming languages that are maximally expressive, maximally concise." IMO, computation, expressing algorithms, AND mathematical reasoning  PLUS Etc.. - An estimably "per

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

IMO the "perfect" language would be synergistic or integrated with a "perfect" (or generally efficient protocol). I have a partially worked-up universal communication protocol (UCP)...  "Perfect" would depend on the communicating agents computational complexity in real environments, not an AIXI

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:43 AM Matt Mahoney wrote: > The problem with Occam's Razor or algorithmic information theory is > that simplicity is language dependent. In practice, that's for time complexity _only_. In practice, the data founding our models are vastly in excess of the size of the s

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Carefully crafted masterpieces of strings also have an aesthetic effect. Like the one Matt created. You might not know immediately what they mean... but then it sinks in. It's art too. Some strings you never know what they mean but the aesthetic effect impresses. For example some crazy mathemati

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

No, the simple trick just means to remove things - things that don't affect the result enough to kill you. I give you 2 solutions to buying candy: 1) Hand cash to the candy man and take the candy and eat it. 2) Hand cash to the candy man and take the candy then place it on the floor then pick it

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

"As simple as possible but no simpler" (I believe Einstein's paraphrase of Occam's Razor), means not so simple that the theory disagrees with observation. Occam's Razor is true because any possible probability distribution over a set of strings (descriptions, theories, programs) must favor shorter

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Still though you have to have a computational resource topology to process the theories. We immediately assume a single executable program funneled down to CPU registers as Turing machine emulation but as there's more strings and theories the resources need to distribute on the computational com

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

You right! Thanks for reposting that Matt quote I somehow missed it so I reread a few times - he actually pre-answered the question I asked afterwards, uh duh.  -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T377

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

I hear someone in the background screaming "simpl please" More people can read it if it's simple and unified, come on guys! I already believe I fully understand all you said Matt, it's just "simple but not too simple". And that you start at Brute Force and use hints where to search (as

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

> Occam's Razor is true because for all possible probability distributions over > the infinite set of possible theories described by strings, each theory can > only be more likely than a finite set of longer theories. This is true in any > language used to describe the theories. You completely

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Matt, I know that, the answer is more likely the simplest explanation one, 2 4 8 16 32.that's what I said above. So is my use of the word razor correct then? - Simple but not too simple. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://a

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > You could write a program to print any next number you wanted. But both the > code and the English language description would be longer. Occam's Razor and > Solomonoff induction says the answer is 32. That's an absolute answer but vari

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

What is the next number in the sequence 1 2 4 8 16? The answer is 30, the number of positive integers that are factors of n! Or is it 31, the number of regions of 4-space divided by n hyperplanes? Or is it 32, the next number printed by: for(int i=0;;i*=2)cout

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On short and accurately simulable, or computable in reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0 -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T37756381803ac879-M3deea99027c5928d5ae87e68 Delivery options

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Seeing that, Matt, where is the razor definition in my post above??? Work with that post. What I mean is the brain sees observations ex.: the cat ate food the cat was on a porch all night with candles the woman The brain will only store the word "the" once but with a strength of 3 if seen 3 ti

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Representations, and short representations, all make a brain smaller in size! Hence better prediction accuracy. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T37756381803ac879-M1f9c2ca1afba4a3dfb27c4c2 Delivery

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Uh, Matt, .So you're saying the "simple but not too simple" isn't exactly just a way to improve AGI prediction, but much more deeper? Like below?: 1) Short program/brain = 2) better prediction: Short prediction = 3) less error: Short error = 4) big paycheck and big happy Amazing. Note th

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

It's waaay more than just a witty saying!  Have you read Occam or just that one catchphrase? Science isn't based on catchphrases. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T37756381803ac879-M799c7a396111771

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 4:24 PM wrote: > But isn't Occam's Razor just basically saying "simple but not too simple"? > And isn't it razorring off search space to look through when looking for a > solution? > No. A razor is a witty saying. Occam said essentially that simple explanations are better.

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Wow this is really amazing. When you read Occam's writings from the 1300's, and are familiar with the Catholic belief system you can see the direct correlations between deity, spirituality (you know, ghosts and souls 'n stuff), and all of modern mathematics, AIT, logic, science, etc. WOW

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Tear down that statue! (Occam that is) Just figured I'd try to join the zeitgeist... though I do like Occam (Ockham ?) being from a Catholic upbringing :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T37756381

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

But isn't Occam's Razor just basically saying "simple but not too simple"? And isn't it razorring off search space to look through when looking for a solution? -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T3775

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 4:01 PM wrote: > Is my use of the word Razor correct? > No. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/ag

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Is my use of the word Razor correct? Occam's Razor suggests "simple but not too simple", and I'm saying there is many Razors, like updating axon strength (statistics frequency), blending predictions, learning word embeds (cat=dog), recency, pleasure/pain words, etc etc all improve prediction by

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Occam's Razor is true because for all possible probability distributions over the infinite set of possible theories described by strings, each theory can only be more likely than a finite set of longer theories. This is true in any language used to describe the theories. By "theory" I mean a descr

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

But Matt, if we use a language that is easiest to compute in our observed universe, and penalize larger systems, then we are really just leveraging physics and a penalization. We already know this in the original Occam's Razor: Leverage physics and make the algorithm as small as possible (but no

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

The problem with Occam's Razor or algorithmic information theory is that simplicity is language dependent. Any object can be described using one bit if the language is complex enough. We should prefer simple languages to avoid this problem, but defining simple languages just leads to a circular def

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Your question doesn't make sense, I'm lost. I'm just saying the possible things in the universe are of many and most are short strings and very few are "ultra short" or "long", as they don't re-occur frequently. The shortest occur lots but are only of few, most ideas of bit bigger. And I'm sayin

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

On Sunday, June 28, 2020, at 2:35 PM, immortal.discoveries wrote: > It's hierarchy/ heterarchy, as it eats data, slows down in depth growth > exponentially basically, we must make the brain only store repetitively seen > features and ignore storing long rare features (axons weaken or don't connec

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Also I think the brain does ignore too frequent features as well, or very activated ones. If so, then the brain definitely is focusing in the middle layer feature zone for solutions. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topic

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

So how do we implement the original Razor. I mentioned 2 other razors, physics-restricted and pattern compression. We already know how to implement those. For the physics restriction, we just feed it data from our planet. For the original razor, the possibles to consider are much larger in highe

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

I like simplicity. It's race neutral, gender neutral and non-violent. Occam’s Razor gives me mental images of an enraged white medieval guy coming at me with a knife :) Seriously though nice paper Ben. I try to think of ways to criticize it, reread, and you got if covered. Though I do try to re

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

Hi James, etc., That paper sat on my hard drive for about a decade because I wasn't so happy with the way I'd phrased things in the introduction... but finally I decided to just post it on Arxiv anyway because I felt the basic formalization of simplicity measures was OK, and I wanted to use it in

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

> It's a little funny when a paper on defining simplicity is a highly complex > read... :) I was holding off saying it to let others say it first. Below I summarized (!) his Paper after reading most of it. I play with 3 things throughout it, not that 3 is special, but just saying so you can read

Re: [agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

I don't hold that against Goertzel. Solomonoff's 2 seminal papers on algorithmic induction are "complex" as well. It's just that I'm not very motivated by a complaint that universal computation is "very specialized" without a "general" context stated in an incisive, concise and intuitive manner.

[agi] Re: Goertzel's "Grounding Occam's Razor in a Formal Theory of Simplicity"

It's a little funny when a paper on defining simplicity is a highly complex read... :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T37756381803ac879-M24e6994066bfbca3a241a5d7 Delivery options: https://agi.topi