On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/23 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Stephen P. King <[email protected]>
On 10/22/2012 2:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Russell Standish <[email protected]>
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.
http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/ockham-razor-and-genetic-algoritms-life.html
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.
I envision also a kind of selection of the mind over the matter ,
since the most basic notion of existence implies and observer, that
is,a mind and a mind, in a universe where history has a meaning
(that discard boltzmann brains) , and hold a kind of intelligence
(since intelligence permits to make use of experience) impose very
strong antropic restrictions not only in the nature of the phisical
laws, as I said, but in the matematicity of them. With matematicity
i mean a reuse of the same simple structures at different levels of
reality. I mean that the most simple mathematical structures are
more represented in the structure of reality than complicated ones,
to minimize the complexity.
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).
I do not discard your point of view. the difference is that I go the
easy path, from inside to outside, in a cartesian process, may call
it, So my interest is centered not in a simple production
principle, and explain the human experience from it, but to go from
consciousness (with some leaps of faith) out to ascertain the nature
of what is known with the aid of some hopefully testable hypotheses.
To go in the opposite direction i need a kind of understanding and
inspiration that I don´t have. I perhaps need a kind of leap in
imagination to see the big picture, but my natural selectionist bias
force me to think that there would be no intellgence without
purpose, and no purpose without environmnetal pressure, that is
impossible without an environment, and a environment impossible
without a preexistent matter, with preexistent laws. So a universal
machine seems to me the inmaterial equivalent of a boltzman brain,
made with no purpose, for no purpose and this devoid of meaning,
with little to understand about it... Unless some restrictions of
resources, pruposes etc are aplied, that is a selection process.....
No it is different, as Boltzman brain presupposes a physical reality.
Universal machine is just a brain, or a computer, before it has been
programmed. It is the most big mathematical discovery ever, imo. And
nature did made it before us, as many phenomena describes universal
systems in nature. A universal machine, or number, is just a computer
or a brain. A dynamical mirror which can reflect itself, and it has
very peculiar mathematical property. Its presence in some mathematical
structure makes them out of any completable theory possible. I could
argue it can quickly develop sense and purpose. We are such universal
numbers (even without comp: this is just a plain fact). Comp is that
there is no more than that. And that's enough to make sense of
Plotinus theology, so it is certainly not a reductionism.
Bruno
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.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
