On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
> >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> John Clark-12 wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
> >> >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is
> >> true.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence
> >> >> without
> >> >> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert
> >> but
> >> >> a
> >> >> > computer can:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is
> >> true."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
> >> >> assert
> >> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> >> >> > asserting
> >> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert
> >> all
> >> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones.
> >> That
> >> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> >> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right
> >> that
> >> >> from
> >> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> >> >> difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
> >> >> empirical:
> >> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> >> >> programming
> >> >> a
> >> >> computer'
> >> >>
> >> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
> >> >> problem
> >> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible
> >> because
> >> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer
> >> doesn't
> >> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that
> >> you
> >> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> >> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out
> >> of
> >> >> programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it
> >> shows
> >> >> you
> >> >> that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer,
> >> because
> >> >> you
> >> >> are the one programming it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built
> >> >> them),
> >> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted
> >> of
> >> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired
> >> brains.
> >> >  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> >> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> >> > gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to
> >> find
> >> > them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor
> >> the
> >> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> >> >
> >> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> >> > would
> >> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
> >> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because
> >> we
> >> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it
> >> will
> >> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just
> >> won't
> >> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give
> >> them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the
> > universal dovetailer.
> The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense of
> universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned, that
> doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example,
> prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages
> don't).
>

It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies
exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels.

For example: if you exhausted every possible configuration of atoms, you
would also exhaust every possible chemical, every possible life form, and
every possible human.


>
> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a
> program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD
> doesn't
> do.
>

But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD.
 The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.

I am not sure what your point is though.  It is like saying, the universe
can only be everything, it can't be only me.  Therefore I can do something
the universe cannot.


> It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not
> derived
> from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce every
> possible output some day.
>
> Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility but also
> encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones and
> producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain time
> limit.
>

And there are processes that do this, within the UD.  The UD is an example
that programs can grow beyond the intentions of the creator.  The UD itself
isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences.

You might say the solar system is not intelligent but contains
intelligences.


>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You might say we only do what we were instructed to do by the laws of
> >> >> nature, but this would be merely a metaphor, not an actual fact (the
> >> laws
> >> >> of
> >> >> nature are just our approach of describing the world, not something
> >> that
> >> >> is
> >> >> somehow actually programming us).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws,
> >> not
> >> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
> >> >
> >> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain
> >> are
> >> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point
> >> is
> >> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive
> of
> >> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it
> >> is
> >> > an
> >> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of
> >> computation
> >> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know,
> >> we
> >> > seem to be in the same boat.
> >> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature
> can
> >> be
> >> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it
> >> seems
> >> all laws are necessarily incomplete.
> >> It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely
> follows
> >> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no
> evidence
> >> for it either.
> >>
> >
> > So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for
> > humans to be creative?
> No. They don't exist in the first place, except in the mind of physicists.
> They are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the world. Just like
> "The sun rises in the morning" (except more accurate, of course).
>
>
Do you think it is possible, in principal, for human beings to live in a
realm that had fixed laws?


>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms
> >> in
> >> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just
> >> give
> >> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will
> >> happen.
> >>
> >
> > They place bounds on what can happen.
> >
> Not really. Rather what happens places bounds on the laws.
>

Interesting idea.  That is another way of looking at it.


> Nature just tends to utilize regularities that can be described. That
> doesn't mean it is constrained by it, just that it uses them (presumably
> because they work).
>
> Also, our laws don't really place bounds on what can happen because we know
> they are not completely accurate (for example quantum mechanics and
> relativity can't be united as of now).
>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
> >> laws.
> >> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual
> >> precise,
> >> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we
> >> have
> >> no evidence for that.
> >>
> >
> > We have better than evidence, there is actually a logical argument that
> > demonstrates the CI idea (that there is a single universe with collapse)
> > is
> > not possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
> >
> I agree. But I have never said that I support CI. In my opinion universes
> are abstractions that don't actually exist, ultimately. Neither one, nor
> infinitely many (though the latter seems far more accurate to me).
>
>
You might like what the guy in the above video proposes, not one, not
infinite, but zero universes.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to