A lot of the posts on strong AI are geared to argue that such-and-such approach is inadequate, but such-and-such approach will work. But you don't see as many posts that say such-and-such approach may be partially adequate. I view mathematics that way -- it does a lot but it doesn't do everything.
It seemed like for a while narrow AI became more and more mathematical, with authors first saying "given some problem with this contraint under these conditions" they then flash their formula, seemingly to show their in-group membership, guaranteeing that somebody that didn't know differential calculus would get lost. The tacit assumption being that math-first is the way to go and it does everything. Mike A On 9/4/13, tintner michael <[email protected]> wrote: > [The main point is missed: maths cannot find the "formula"/"prototype" for > irregular (and by extension) creative forms [like rocks and blobs] or > irregular groups of forms - patchworks. The natural world consists of > irregular forms and irregular patchworks. There is no formula for them - > only fluid schemas. The human/AGI mind is adapted to and designed for an > irregular, patchwork world not the regular, patterned, "blocks" world of > AGI-ers' blind fantasies]. > > > Is mathematics an effective way to describe the world? > September 3rd, 2013 in Other Sciences / Mathematics > > Math has the illusion of being effective when we focus on the successful > examples, Abbott argues. But there are many more cases where math is > ineffective than where it is effective. Credit: Derek Abbott. ©2013 IEEE > > Mathematics has been called the language of the universe. Scientists and > engineers often speak of the elegance of mathematics when describing > physical reality, citing examples such as ?, E=mc2, and even something as > simple as using abstract integers to count real-world objects. Yet while > these examples demonstrate how useful math can be for us, does it mean that > the physical world naturally follows the rules of mathematics as its > "mother tongue," and that this mathematics has its own existence that is > out there waiting to be discovered? This point of view on the nature of the > relationship between mathematics and the physical world is called > Platonism, but not everyone agrees with it. > > Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at The > University of Adelaide in Australia, has written a perspective piece to be > published in the Proceedings of the IEEE in which he argues that > mathematical Platonism is an inaccurate view of reality. Instead, he argues > for the opposing viewpoint, the non-Platonist notion that mathematics is a > product of the human imagination that we tailor to describe reality. > > This argument is not new. In fact, Abbott estimates (through his own > experiences, in an admittedly non-scientific survey) that while 80% of > mathematicians lean toward a Platonist view, engineers by and large are > non-Platonist. Physicists tend to be "closeted non-Platonists,**" he says, > meaning they often appear Platonist in public. But when pressed in private, > he says he can "often extract a non-Platonist confession." > > So if mathematicians, engineers, and physicists can all manage to perform > their work despite differences in opinion on this philosophical subject, > why does the true nature of mathematics in its relation to the physical > world really matter? > > The reason, Abbott says, is that because when you recognize that math is > just a mental construct-just an approximation of reality that has its > frailties and limitations and that will break down at some point because > perfect mathematical forms do not exist in the physical universe-then you > can see how ineffective math is. > > And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that > mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality, and definitely > not the "miracle" that some scientists have marveled at. Einstein, a > mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marveled at the power of > mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a > product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so > admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" > > In 1959, the physicist and mathematician Eugene Wigner described this > problem as "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.**" In response, > Abbott's paper is called "The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics.**" > Both viewpoints are based on the non-Platonist idea that math is a human > invention. But whereas Wigner and Einstein might be considered mathematical > optimists who noticed all the ways that mathematics closely describes > reality, Abbott pessimistically points out that these mathematical models > almost always fall short. > > What exactly does "effective mathematics" look like? Abbott explains that > effective mathematics provides compact, idealized representations of the > inherently noisy physical world. > > "Analytical mathematical expressions are a way making compact descriptions > of our observations,**" he told Phys.org. "As humans, we search for this > 'compression&#**39; that math gives us because we have limited brain power. > Maths is effective when it delivers simple, compact expressions that we can > apply with regularity to many situations. It is ineffective when it fails > to deliver that elegant compactness. It is that compactness that makes it > useful/practical ... if we can get that compression without sacrificing too > much precision. > > "I argue that there are many more cases where math is ineffective > (non-compact) than when it is effective (compact). Math only has the > illusion of being effective when we focus on the successful examples. But > our successful examples perhaps only apply to a tiny portion of all the > possible questions we could ask about the universe." > > Some of the arguments in Abbott's paper are based on the ideas of the > mathematician Richard W. Hamming, who in 1980 identified four reasons why > mathematics should not be as effective as it seems. Although Hamming > resigned himself to the idea that mathematics is unreasonably effective, > Abbott shows that Hamming'**s reasons actually support non-Platonism given > a reduced level of mathematical effectiveness. > > Here are a few of Abbott's reasons for why mathematics is reasonably > ineffective, which are largely based on the non-Platonist viewpoint that > math is a human invention: > > . Mathematics appears to be successful because we cherry-pick the problems > for which we have found a way to apply mathematics. There have likely been > millions of failed mathematical models, but nobody pays attention to them. > ("A genius," Abbott writes, "is merely one who has a great idea, but has > the common sense to keep quiet about his other thousand insane > thoughts."**) > > . Our application of mathematics changes at different scales. For example, > in the 1970s when transistor lengths were on the order of micrometers, > engineers could describe transistor behavior using elegant equations. > Today's submicrometer transistors involve complicated effects that the > earlier models neglected, so engineers have turned to computer simulation > software to model smaller transistors. A more effective formula would > describe transistors at all scales, but such a compact formula does not > exist. > > . Although our models appear to apply to all timescales, we perhaps create > descriptions biased by the length of our human lifespans. For example, we > see the Sun as an energy source for our planet, but if the human lifespan > were as long as the universe, perhaps the Sun would appear to be a > short-lived fluctuation that rapidly brings our planet into thermal > equilibrium with itself as it "blasts" into a red giant. From this > perspective, the Earth is not extracting useful net energy from the Sun. > > . Even counting has its limits. When counting bananas, for example, at some > point the number of bananas will be so large that the gravitational pull of > all the bananas draws them into a black hole. At some point, we can no > longer rely on numbers to count. > > . And what about the concept of integers in the first place? That is, where > does one banana end and the next begin? While we think we know visually, we > do not have a formal mathematical definition. To take this to its logical > extreme, if humans were not solid but gaseous and lived in the clouds, > counting discrete objects would not be so obvious. Thus axioms based on the > notion of simple counting are not innate to our universe, but are a human > construct. There is then no guarantee that the mathematical descriptions we > create will be universally applicable. > > For Abbott, these points and many others that he makes in his paper show > that mathematics is not a miraculous discovery that fits reality with > incomprehensible regularity. In the end, mathematics is a human invention > that is useful, limited, and works about as well as expected. > > For those who seek something more practical out of such a discussion, > Abbott explains that this understanding can allow for greater freedom of > thought. One example is an improvement of vector operations. The current > method involves dot and cross products, "a rather clunky" tool that does > not generalize to higher dimensions. Lately there has been a renewed > interest in an alternative approach called geometric algebra, which > overcomes many of the limitations of dot and cross products and can be > extended to higher dimensions. Abbott is currently working on a tutorial > paper on geometric algebra for electrical engineers to be published in the > near future. > > More information: More information: Derek Abbott. "The Reasonable > Ineffectiveness of Mathematics.**" Proceedings of the IEEE. To be > published. DOI: 10.1109/JPROC.**2013.2274907 > > © 2013 Phys.org > > "Is mathematics an effective way to describe the world?." September 3rd, > 2013. > http://phys.**org/news/**2013-09-mathemat**ics-effective-**world.html<http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html> > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > 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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
