I see no evidence that the brain solves those; and they don't seem to come up in AI algorithms pursued at the moment...
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > So that’s the key questions then: Do we need to solve n-body*-*type* *problems > for AGI. I think not…**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Ben Goertzel [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:10 AM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Computing functions versus solving equations > (calculating versus physical execution)**** > > ** ** > > > There is no real evidence that we need to solve n-body problems to achieve > human-level AGI... > > It does seem we may need lots of processors acting in parallel, though -- > say, millions or tens of millions.... That's unclear. > > -- Ben**** > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote:*** > * > > Thanks, Ben. Yes, that’s in line with my understanding, but it seems to > miss my point. Let me be more specific: What about achieving AGI in the > next 10 years – i.e. without “massively parallel femto-computers” or > anything like that. What is the evidence that in order to have full-blown > AGI we need (or do not need) to solve n-body-like problems on technology > that is available nowish. **** > > **** > > *From:* Ben Goertzel [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:28 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Computing functions versus solving equations > (calculating versus physical execution)**** > > **** > > > Peter, > > About physics and computation -- > > The following is my understanding. To prove these statements rigorously > would take some work.. > > According to the Standard Model (accounting for all known forces besides > gravity), any physical system could be simulated by some (potentially > massively parallel) femto-computer, without dramatic inefficiency > > Any physical system not relying on degenerate matter (i.e. keeping its > nuclear particles inside atoms) can be simulated by some (potentially > massively parallel) quantum computer without dramatic inefficiency > > Any physical system not depending on macroscopic quantum coherence, can be > simulated by some (potentially massively parallel) classical digital > computer (say, a big Connection Machine), without dramatic inefficiency > > All this is based on the Standard Model without including gravity. There > is no consistent, acknowledged unified theory of the Standard Model and > gravitational (General Relativity) theory. According to string theory or > loop quantum gravity theory, two of the leading contenders for a unified > theory, it is my impression that any physical system could be simulated by > some appropriately defined massively parallel string or loop computer, > without dramatic inefficiency. But this is less clear to me since the math > of these theories is rather incompletely understood. > > If one takes General Relativity Theory or classical mechanics, and imposes > some minimum size (to crudely emulate quantum limits), then one finds that > any physical system with "moving parts" above that size can be simulated by > some (potentially massively parallel) classical digital computer, without > dramatic inefficiency. > > If one takes General Relativity or classical mechanics at face value and > allows them to deal with infinite-precision real-number variables, then one > finds that they can lead to hypercomputational dynamical systems that can't > be simulated on any digital computer. Some of these hypothetical > hypercomputational systems may be set up as n-body problems. However, > please note that the total corpus of existing (or possible) scientific data > is a big set of finite bits. So, it's a bit odd to place faith in a theory > stating the universe depends on infinite-precision numbers, based on a > collection of finite-set data points. > > Note that all of the above comments are about massively parallel digital > computers. Obviously simulating massively parallel systems on computers > with a small number of processors is going to be inefficient. > > -- Ben G**** > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote:*** > * > > This issues has bothered me for a long time, and I’d like to explore it a > bit:**** > > **** > > While digital computers obviously can be set up to solve equations, there > still seems to be a significant difference in efficiency of simulating/ > calculating versus physical analog ‘doing’/ execution – like for example in > solving an n-body problem. Real systems system just produce the result by > interaction of all the forces (electro/ mechanical), while computers have > to approximate/ iterate. **** > > **** > > Key question: Are there AGI common problems where digital/simulated > approaches need hyper-exponential amounts of computing power compared to > physical systems? Is this kind of equation-solving core to AGI? I don’t > think so, but…**** > > **** > > Other may be able to formulate this better. **** > > **** > > What has bothered me is the glib assertion that a digital computer an > calculate to any arbitrary level of precision (true)… but does the cost > become unworkable in practice, even with Moore’s law.**** > > **** > > Peter**** > > **** > > *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:39 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Happy 100th Birthday Alan Turing - No, computers > will never think, but machines will!**** > > **** > > Hey everyone, > > Remember my discussions about how computers fundamentally compute > functions, while biological neurons appear to fundamentally solve equations > - a MUCH higher level thing to do. It appears possible to design something > resembling a computer to do this, but NOT to simulate this sort of > functionality in any sort of practical way because of the astronomical > inefficiency of solving huge systems of simultaneous NON-linear equations > using conventional computational methods. > > No, I don't think that we need any sort of silicon wetware, but we DO > appear to need a radically more advanced sort of "computer", but probably > NOT anything that Turing has ever thought of - in short, NOT a "Turing > machine". > > Besides, you'll never get 2-D silicon to work like 3-D wetware. > > Steve > ================**** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> | > Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > **** > > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich > Nietzsche<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > **** > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > *http://goertzel.org* > > "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich > Nietzsche****<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > > ** ** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
