On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you there. Our disagreement is about what formal systems > a computer can understand.
I'm also not quite sure what the problem is, but suppose we put it this way: I think the most useful way to understand the family of algorithms of which AIXI is the best-known member, is that they effectively amount to: "create (by perfect simulation) all possible universes and select the one that exhibits the desired behavior". Suppose we took a bunch of data from our universe as input, if the amount of data were large enough to be specific enough, our universe (or at least one with the same physical laws) would be created and selected as producing results that match the data. So the universe thus created would contain humans, and therefore contain all the understanding of mathematics that actual humans have. Of course, this understanding would not be contained in the original kernel. But this should not be surprising. Consider a realistic AI which can't create whole universes, but can learn about mathematics. Suppose the kernel of the AI is written in Lisp, does the Lisp compiler understand incomputable numbers? No, but that's no reason the AI as a whole can't, at least to the extent that we humans do. Does this help at all? ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
