On Saturday, October 05, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > The complexity of an object is the fewest number of symbols needed to > describe it in some language. It has nothing to do with computation time, > energy, or consciousness. It is only the simplicity of a theory that > determines its power in making predictions in accordance with Occam's Razor. > This holds in all branches of science. > > Simpler descriptions are usually slower. For example, the simplest > description of pi is probably the Taylor series expansion of 4 x arctan(1) = > 4 x (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 +...). But that converges very slowly. You need a > million terms to get the first 6 decimal places. There are faster algorithms, > but it is the simplest formula that determines how often pi turns up in > various places.
Matt, Pi doesn't exist, only expressions and approximations of it and you gave an example. You must expend energy and time to generate a better approximation, IOW add power. Generate a fractal view of a mountain range. Looks pretty good but you can still see it's fake. Expend more energy into the fractal rendering and it starts to look better, there is more added complexity to the simple fractal description. You are a conscious observer. The fractal is a symbol/program but energy must be expended to the point where it looks recognizable as a real mountain or what good is it?. You witness the fractal rendering across time and space. There is some loss there and that has to be taken into account... This is a half-duplex experiential communication, you and the fractal rendering. Are you starting to see where this is going? (Probably not but figured I'd ask anyway :) ) ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-M97e389cf603449035b092281 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
