This conversation was keeping me awake. I realized how silly my questions and statements must seem. Silly, not in a scientific sense, but silly nonetheless, because there's no way Sophia would've advanced to the level of technology it did, if it wasn't developed from a quantum-centric perspective. And these last revelations of the types of logic and reasoning proved that to me.
It should be possible to simulate quantum logic on a non-quantum computational platform. The processing may become extremely slow and the functionally reach a limit, but it would still be feasible. I think Ben et al have proven that to be true already. What's really stopping development of a functional, generalized version of AGI? Very little it seems. I think we're now witnessing its emergence via the biotech route, as a transhumanist approach. That would probably be the first. However, I don't think the programmable approach should be abandoned at all. The biotech version and its hosts could still collapse in total dysfunction. It's way too early to say. Still grokking the mysteries of quantum entanglement. According to my understanding, the collapsing of a wave function isn't so much a problem, as a natural phenomenon. It triggers decay in the inherent nuclear chain reactions. Halting is no real problem at all either, except for non-quantum based computational platforms, where it would probably produce fatal system errors. Perhaps this quantum "endeavour" is all but a quest for control of nature, for being able to control both fission and fusion. Holistic efforts in AGI could well break through the knowledge barrier. It's worth a chance, right? However, I'm beginning to think as a pure machine, it would go no further than broad AI, perhaps ultimately existing as a cog in the chain of a universal concept of AI. *He who controls nature, controls the world.* The rest, it seems, does it for vanity, for fame and/or fortune. If quantum entanglement could be solved mathematically and embedded in a Proof-of-Concept computational platform, simulated, it'll probably have to solve a number of the biggest questions known to science. Inter alia, it would earn those who succeeded first, millions of dollars in instant cash. I'm referring to problems such as the Halting Problem, the Riemann Hypothesis, and so on. I think they are all associated in the space around quantum entanglement. *For those who want to add value to their AI logic*, as a practice of fully-recursive, concurrent knowledge engineering, feel free to browse my free, rudimentary field-research paper on a method on Researchgate. It contains essential, step-by-step pseudo code, which you could program into your AI toolkit and start running simulations with. Hopefully, if you did it correctly, exponentials would kick in. The method took more than a decade to develop and was tested for another decade. *The paper (one such a result of a real-time, complex project test) was double-blind peer reviewed by the IEEE, thereafter accepted for publication at the PICMET conference.* It could potentially save you a lot of development time. On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:04 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is interesting, had to pause and think on it: > > > > "Theorem 4. A COFO decision process whose combinatory operations Ci are > mutually > > associative can be implemented as a chronomorphism." > > > > I believe the utility of hierarchical structures for various aspects > of human-like intelligence is mainly resultant from corollaries of > this theorem > > I.e. the matrix-transformation operators used in e.g. vision and > audition are mutually associative and this is what allows the > operation in terms of perceptual hierarchies in these domains ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9a211170d976967d-Mdd9d9f7e799e6401ffc31af2 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
