On 09 Oct 2012, at 20:39, Stephen P. King wrote:

## Advertising

On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote:On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:Hi Russell,Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI toself-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self underthe evolutionary transformations?It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate inenvironments where they need a self-model. They are not membersof a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers,have limited self-models (where am I, what's my batterycharge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but theydon't have general intelligence (yet).Brent --Could the efficiency of the computation be subject tomodeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself forsome task to more efficiently solve that task...Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten theproofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the "wrongdirection".Hi Bruno,Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it ismore clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computationsobtains?

`The (correct) machine tries to prove its consistency (Dt, ~Bf) and`

`never succeed, so bet that she can't do that. Then she prove Dt ->`

`~BDt, and infer interrogatively Dt and ~BDt.`

`Then either she adds the axiom Dt, with the D corresponding to the`

`whole new theory. In that case she becomes inconsistent.`

`Or, she add Dt as a new axiom, without that "Dt" included, in that`

`case it is not so complex to prove that she will have infinitely many`

`proofs capable to be arbitrarily shortened. I might explain more after`

`I sump up Church thesis and the phi_i and the W_i. That theorem admits`

`a short proof. You can find one in Torkel's book on the use and misuse`

`of Gödel's theorem, or you can read the original proof by Gödel in the`

`book edited by Martin Davis "the undecidable" (now a Dover book).`

On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhilltheorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to bearbitrarily speedable.This is a measure issue, no?

No.

Of course the trick is in "on almost all inputs" which means all,except a finite number of exception, and this concerns moreevolution than reason.OK.Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle.Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself oncomputation + self-reference + arithmetical truth).BrunoSo you are equating selection by fitness in a local environmentwith a halting oracle?

`Somehow. Newton would probably not have noticed the falling apple and`

`F=ma, if dinosaurs didn't "stop" some times before. The measure`

`depends on 'computation in the limit' (= computation + halting oracle)`

`because the first person experience is invariant of the UD's delays.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.