I don't either. QM is a good theory in the sense it allows one to predict an enormous variety of phenomena, but the interpretations, particularly the Copenhagen interpretations, is murky to say the least.
One more thing. My theory predicts compression, as a consequence, not the other way around. Sergio -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 9:37 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The bandwidth/modality issue >From Wikipedia: Einstein was displeased with quantum theory and mechanics, despite its acceptance by other physicists, stating "God doesn't play with dice." As Einstein passed away at the age of 76 he still would not accept quantum theory. Jim Bromer On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis <[email protected]> wrote: > I've dropped this poisoned pill (along with many others) a few times > but nobody picked it up, so here is a more explicit version. > > First, let's start by saying that we are not going to deny General > Intelligence to people who are bound to hospital beds and wheelchairs > and can communicate only by batting an eyelid or something like that. > But for those of us that are building AGI babies/children etc, and I > would include myself here, we will probably need more than a one-bit > channel to grok the world. Much more interestingly, if we were to > "survive" on our own, meeting all kinds of real-time i/o requirements, > we might need more or less bandwidth to the world, with admittedly > enormous variations depending on a more or less malformed "universe", > ranging from one where death is instant to one that survival is > unconditional and therefore any i/o is unnecessary. > > Are there at all any proofs/metrics/guesstimates regarding the visual, > auditory or whatever bandwidth required to "decode" a real or virtual > world? Let me just note here that, for all I know, we seem to have > "decoded" physics purely by vision, though it is not unimaginable that > a tribe of blind Einsteins could create opto-auditory experiments that > would expose the underlying quantum world. I have to note as well that > the arrogance of modern physics may be completely unwarranted, there > is no proof that our world is not so malformed that we are shielded > from the true "patterns". We could also take the view that our physics > experiments would not have been possible without the other senses that > participated in the creation of scientific infrastructure, for example > touch and vibration while building apparatus and smell while > distinguishing compounds and elements that are necessary in > experiments. Again, we could "rig" spectrographs to give us audio > clues regarding the purity of substances, but could we build a > spectrograph just by ... looking? > > So, back to the troubling question: could it be that world-decoding > requires 2 "retina-cams"? Will VGA do? Could it be that VGA has to be > supplemented by dog-like smell? Can a small virtual world be > decoded/survived with a fixed, small bandwidth? A world as small as > chess or poker needs nearly complete information for full-on > engagement, how can it be we are decoding a humongous universe with > two retina-cams? In Conway's Game of Life there is no place for > sensors and AGIs because of the determinism,right? I mean, how can you > create a pattern that creates an internal representation and > expectations of the surroundings without being able to choose a time > and place for experimentation, repeat under the same conditions etc. > Determinism aside, if there were any structures that looked like > environmental probes they would probably be huge. But how to create > two and more modalities, a Life "hearing" and a Life "smell"? I'd > suggest we keep "cheating" with virtual domains, ie we do not try to > implement AGI with Life's components, rather we dualistically maintain > the "logic" outside the virtual world but the sensors have to be in > the world, we should not make available to the AGI global and complete > data as if a god looking from above. > > As I am writing this I can't help thinking that you have to bring a > full fledged AGI to the decoding/survival problem, bootstrapping your > environment and "invironment" to the point of having an unlimited > intelligence ecosystem probably requires more intelligence than the > intelligence you need with the ecosystem completed and in full effect > with all kinds of machines and computers and all kinds of entropic > impossibilities around you. It could also be argued that you could > come up with string theory and all of mathematics before you ever got > your first bit from the environment (though interaction with the > environment has been vital for all human concepts and achievements). > > AT > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by > Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; d2 Powered by Listbox: 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
