But Richard, 1) none of us are **trying** to predict highly specific properties of the state of an AGI at a certain point in time, based on the AGIs micro-level configuration
2) we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems ... arguing that certain natural systems are hard to predict in some senses is one thing, whereas arguing that some specific kind of hard-to-predictness is **intrinsic** to intelligence (natural or engineered) is another -- Ben G On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these > claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the > implications for their own field .... > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 > > For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article > refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. > > Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties > of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not > reducible. > > Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that > emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. > > It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very > closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by > some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. > > I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without > treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu > et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the > system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum > "understanding" in the class of systems that I am most interested in: > > BEGIN QUOTE: > > Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms > adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be > calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some > scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of > the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, > the system is considered "formally undecidable". > > "We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled > from the fundamental interactions," says Gu. Even some really simple > properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one > direction, cannot be computed. > > This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to > simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked > to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in > turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many > levels, rather than working from just one. "A 'theory of everything' might > not explain all natural phenomena," says Gu. "Real understanding may require > further experiments and intuition at every level." > > Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the > delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical > arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results > "really interesting", but thinks one element of the proof needs further > study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying > an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most > natural systems. "So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for > actual finite systems," says Barrow. > > Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues > that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to > describe the world often refer to infinite systems. "Our results suggest > that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles," > he says. > > END QUOTE. > > > I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: "We were able to > find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental > interactions..." > > Now where have I heard that before, I wonder? > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
