On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2012/10/22 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
On 10/22/2012 2:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2012/10/22 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:38:46PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Rusell,
>     How does Schmidhuber consider the physicality of resources?
> --
> Onward!
> Stephen

No. The concept doesn't enter consideration. What he considers is that
the Great Programmer has finite (or perhaps bounded resources), which
gives an additional boost to algorithms that run efficiently.

that´s the problem that I insist, has a natural solution considering the computational needs of living beings under natural selection, without resorting to a everithing-theory of reality based of a UD algorithm, like the Schmidhuber one.
Dear Alberto,

My suspicion is that there does not exist a single global computation of the behavior of living (or other) beings and that "natural selection" is a local computation between each being and its environment. We end up with a model where there are many computations occurring concurrently and there is no single computation that can dovetail all of them together such that a picture of the universe can be considered as a single simulation running on a single computer except for a very trivial case (where the total universe is in a bound state and at maximum equilibrium).

Yes, that'`s also what I think. These computations are material, in the sense that they are subject to limitation of resources (nervous signal speeds, chemical equilibrion, diffusion of hormones etc. So the bias toward a low kolmogorov complexity of an habitable universe can be naturally deduced from that.

Natural selection is the mechanism for making discoveries, individual life incorporate these discoveries, called adaptations. A cat that jump to catch a fish has not discovered the laws of newton, Instead, the evolution has found a way to modulate the force exerted by the muscles according with how long the jump must be, and depending on the weight of the cat (that is calibrated by playing at at the early age).

But this technique depends on the lineality and continuity of the law of newton for short distances. If the law of newton were more complicated, that would not be possible. So a low complexity of the macroscopical laws permit a low complexity and a low use of resources of the living computers that deal with them, and a faster dsicovery of adaptations by natural selection. But that complexity has a upper limit; Lineality seems to be a requirement for the operation of natural selection in the search for adaptations.


I kind of agree with all what you say here, and on the basic philosophy. But I think that what you describe admits a more general description, in which the laws of physics are themselves selected by a process similar but more general than evolution. It makes me think that life (and brains at some different level) is what happen when a universal system mirrors itself. A universal machine is a dynamical mirror, and life can develop once you put the dynamical mirror in front of itself (again a case of diagonalization). I think I follow your philosophy, but apply it in arithmetic and/or computer science.

Now I am just afraid, to talk frankly, that it looks like you have a reductionist conception of numbers and machines, which does not take into account the discovery of the universal machine (by the Post- Church-Kleene-Turing thesis) which makes you miss that your philosophy might be the natural philosophy of all universal numbers. (I probably exaggerate my point for attempt to be short).

We can already talk with the "Löbian numbers". I already recognize myself. I already don't take them as zombie. It does not matter that the talk admits a local atemporal description. Arithmetic is full of life and dreams.

And if we limit ourselves, non constructively (it is the price) to the *arithmetically sound* Löbian numbers, we get an arithmetical interpretation of a platonist conception of reality. Decidable on its propositional parts.

In that conception physics is the border of the universal mind, which by assuming comp, might be the mind of the universal machine.

Can that philosophy helps to solve the 1p measure problems, or guide us in the "human" interpretation of the arithmetical interpretation? Hard to say. Plausible. There will be different methods, and insight.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to