Hutter's proof that Occam's Razor (in a certain form) is key to intelligence depends on
1) a specific definition of what "intelligence" is 2) a restriction to intelligent systems with a huge amount of computational resources as well as 3) an assumption that the universe is in-principle computable To me, personally, 2 is the biggest worry. I'm willing to accept 3 as an interesting working hypothesis, and 1 as a guide for ongoing work, but it seems likely to me that for intelligent systems with feasibly modest computational resources, other fundamental principles are required along with Occam-like ones. ben g On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One more time: the proof of Occam's Razor depends on whether the universe > is computable by a Turing machine. It does not depend on whether the > universe is computable by a machine that we could actually build. I never > claimed it was practical to do all of science by simulating physics. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [agi] "the universe is computable" ..PS > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:20 PM > > Matt, > > > > What Mike is saying here may sound odd, but I think there > > is a > > reasonable way of interpreting it in light of the article > > Richard > > Loosemore posted in a recent thread (New Scientist: > > "Why nature can't > > be reduced to mathematical laws"). So, Mike is > > entirely correct here > > if we interpret the "potential" he is referring > > to as the abstractions > > that engineers *must* use to explore the space of possible > > designs. In > > other words: facts about the concrete universe could be > > entirely > > determinate, yet even the most concrete-seeming abstract > > model could > > contain logical indeterminacy. (How you *interpret* this > > indeterminacy, that is, constructively or classically, is > > of course > > another issue.) > > > > --Abram > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Matt Mahoney > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Mike Tintner > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> What are the shapes/forms (and range of > > shapes/forms) of > > >> atoms? > > > > > > The shapes are given by solving Schrodinger's > > equation. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation > > > > > >> And how would you or physics derive the properties > > of > > >> different materials from these shapes? > > > > > > By solving the equation for millions of atoms on a > > very large computer. Computing chemical and physical > > properties has never been done this way because > > unfortunately the computation time increases exponentially > > with the number of particles. > > > > > >> where will the S&P 500 > > >> be at the end of Tuesday? > > > > > > Sorry, I would need a computer much bigger than the > > universe to compute that (and it probably wouldn't > > finish running by Tuesday). > > > > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- 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
