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?
No. The concept doesn't enter consideration. What he considers is
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.
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
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at