The only benefit of saying 'zero dimensional' math is to settle down the Cartesians out there who wonder how math could apply to thinking, which always seems to be in the same place, so it takes no coordinates to locate it. Kind of a marketing ploy :-)
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > And, the answer to that, I think from your perspective, is that we are > > still looking for as yet undiscovered equations of intelligence, which > > would not wholesale copy 3 dimensional math, but would be something > > new, like a 0-dimensional math (which I've read about but don't > > understand). > > > > Yes, I think that in future there will be nice mathematical equations for > the structure and dynamics of intelligence systems... > > These will not solve all problems about intelligence immediately, of > course, > just as knowing the Navier-Stokes equation doesn't make the whole of fluid > dynamics trivial ... it just gives a solid basis for fluid dynamics work... > > However, just as the Wright Brothers built a plane without a good > aerodynamic > theory, it may also be possible to build an AGI prior to the existence > of a solid > mathematical theory of AGI... > > I don't think it's useful to describe, say, the math of computer > algorithms as > "zero dimensional." It's simply math about structures for which > dimensionality > is not a relevant concept.... > > -- Ben > ------------------------------------------- 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
