On 08/11/2007, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry I'm not going to be able to provide much illumination for > you at this time. Just the few sentences of yours quoted above, while > of a level of comprehension equal or better than average on this list, > demonstrate epistemological incoherence to the extent I would hardly > know where to begin. > > This discussion reminds me of hot rod enthusiasts arguing passionately > about how to build the best racing car, while denigrating any > discussion of entropy as outside the "practical." >
You are over stating the case majorly. Entropy can be used to make predictions about chemical reactions and help design systems. UAI so far has yet to prove its usefulness. It is just a mathematical formalism that is incomplete in a number of ways. 1) Doesn't treat computation as outputting to the environment, thus can have no concept of saving energy or avoiding inteference with other systems by avoiding computation. The lack of energy saving means it is not valid model for solving the problem of being a non-reversible intelligence in an energy poor environment (which humans are and most mobile robots will be). 2) It is based on Sequential Interaction Machines, rather than Multi-Stream Interaction Machines, which means it might lose out on expressiveness as talked about here. http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/bcj1.pdf It is the first step on an interesting path, but it is too divorced from what computation actually is, for me to consider it equivalent to the entropy of AI. Will Pearson ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=63155358-fb9c39
