Mike, I have repeatedly tried to explain to you how your basic disbelief about the potential for an algorithm to be creative is wrong and you have chosen to repeatedly ignore me.
No one is saying that the computers that we use are exactly the same as every possible physical object or event that could exist in the universe. That would be such an inane presumption that no one would actually make a conclusion like that. What they are saying is that the universe is an extensive system of things that effectively constitute computational things that have physical effects. While no one could say how an algorithm could create a new physical element, you can't explain how the universe would create a new element, except possibly to repeat someone else's unproven conjecture. So your inability to answer an equivalent question suggests that the question was nonsense because it is based on a miscontrual of the idea. No one has ever said that algorithms exist as material objects. This argument that you made is based on a categorical error. And the effort to explain this to you gives more credible evidence - not proof but evidence - that the theory of the computable universe may be reasonable. Algorithms are effects (or effective procedures) of computable systems, but they are not the objects (or machines) that run and "compute" those effects. Just as we need a computer to run our programs, the universe requires the matter of the universe to run its "programs". This point of view could be disputed and revisted by relying on speculative philosopy of science. However, that is not my interest. I was just saying... Jim Bromer On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > This is the crazy logic that pervades AGI - > > “just because all algorithms – numbering many billions – have totally > failed to produce anything new whatsoever – doesn’t mean that they couldn’t > still do so”.. > > “just because we have no evidence that matter is doing any computing of > its behaviour, doesn’t mean that it *couldn’t* be doing some computing” > > Well, no, and the laws – i.e. regularities of behaviour - of the universe > *could* be upended tomorrow – just because the earth has always gone one > way round the sun, doesn’t mean it couldn’t opt for a new course, say the > opposite direction, tomorrow. > > It’s true nothing is absolutely guaranteed. > > But to qualify as more than another AGI crazy type, you have to offer some > *reason* – some empirical reason why – a) algorithms could suddenly produce > new elements or b) matter, and presumably some parts of matter, are doing > some computing. > > You have to produce real world reasoning about the nature of > things/algorithms/matter – not just logical legalistic wordplay - and that > is totally lacking here. > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 8:47 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Fw: Pre-pub Offer: A Computable Universe > > Intuitively, I would agree that the proposition that a natural > occurrence is "computing" the effects it has seems like a stretch of the > term. However, the idea is interesting. And I can use reason about to find > some interesting validations of the conjecture. First of all, any model is > imperfect. So imperfection is not in itself a good reason to reject a > model. And models are based on abstractions and simplifications of the > event being modelled so the idea that there are limitations on the > application of a event of the universe does not show that the event cannot > be likened to a computation. Next, while someone may set up a computation, > that does not mean that he controls every aspect of it. And we can observe > computations that other people have started. So the recognition that an > observer of a natural event is not necessarily controlling the event is > not, in itself, a substantial reason to reject the conjecture that the > event can be likened to a computation. Furthermore, we can interact with > natural events and so we can make conclusions like that which states that > the orbit of a satellite is "computing" the orbit of an object. Why not? > Some natural events have not been reduced to pure systems of regularity, > but we can use mathematics to model systems that exhibit some kinds of > regularity without requiring that the totality of the system be regular. > > So while the conjecture is based on a stretch of the term computation, it > can still be enlightening to consider it. We might learn something and we > may sharpen our thoughts about such things. > > However, there is no way to establish that all things and events in the > universe are governed only by regular and computable methods. It is just > an interesting idea which is really useful when it is done well. > > Jim Bromer > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Perhaps this is a useful insight into where people may be going wrong. >> >> The “laws of physics” are computable – IOW it is true that humans can use >> computers to express and explore mathematically defined regularities of >> behaviour in matter. >> >> But it doesn’t follow that matter itself is doing the computing, or that >> some deus ex machina behind the scenes is doing the computing. >> >> Just because planets follow regular, mathematically definable orbits, >> doesn’t mean that they are computing their orbits – or that there’s a >> mathematical God/divine principle who/which use mathematics to calculate >> and arrange their orbits. >> >> This looks like another example of the logicomathematician’s extreme >> solipsism – “if I’m doing it, everyone and everything must be doing it - >> the world is just an expression of my mind.” >> >> Er no it isn’t. >> >> >> *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 9:13 PM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Fw: Pre-pub Offer: A Computable Universe >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > It seems like the goal posts keep getting moved around as far as what >> does >> > and doesn't constitute computing, now seemingly becoming so broad that >> just >> > about any interaction is "computing" complete with a $99 book on sale. >> It >> > looks interesting anyway... >> >> >> The (so called) laws of physics are based on computable functions. That >> is an old idea. So, the argument goes, perhaps all the laws of physics may >> be expressed using computable relations. Even non-mathematical relations >> might be expressed as a kind of logical relation and a logical relation may >> be expressed as a mathematical relation. The thing that makes this argument >> interesting is that the laws of physics have played such an important role >> in modern science. >> >> There is a difference between the concept of computation and an effect of >> a pysical reaction because a computation can be used to model a wider range >> of computational systems than some particular reaction. >> >> However, there is a chance that the computable laws of physics have acted >> as a powerhouse not because nature is just a system of computable effects >> but because the arithemtic of the modernn positional notation system has an >> effective power that is still a bit hazy. Indeed, you can even see that >> lack of clarity in this group. >> >> The modern numbering system represents an impressive method of >> "compression" where a value may be represented in a highly efficient >> manner. (Imagine if you had to use ten million sticks to represent >> 10,000,000. It is not as efficient as using ten -or eleven or eight- >> characters of the alphabet. Ten million things vs a selection of eight >> marks drawn from a selecton of twelve variations or characters. That alone >> is one of the most amazing things that human beings have ever >> accomplished. But another, even more unexpected feat has been accomplished >> using the modern numbering system. By using addition or multiplication we >> are able to "compress" the number of steps that we need to take to >> calculate a transformation of a method on two such numbers. We don't have >> to add ten million representations of 10,000,000 in order to calculate what >> 10,000,000 X 10,000,000 equals, instead we can do it in around 64 >> representation-steps. (I am not going to check that but it is in the ball >> park. Of course we don't have to do all of the steps for a multiplication >> where the two decimal numbers has long strings of zeros in them. I knew >> that.) >> >> Saying that the underlying reality is a computable universe is taking a >> major leap. Saying that the underlying reality of the major advances that >> have emanated out of physics and computer programming is the power to >> "compress" representations and "compress" transformations of such >> representations is not that much of a step. >> >> By expressing this I am starting to see that particular kinds of >> relationships might be expressed in order to compress certain kinds of >> transformations of representations of ideological objects. However, I >> don't see anything that would come anywhere near the compressed >> transformations of arithmetic. Party like it's 30 BC. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
