Hm. I suppose we could think of a UTM in the same way we think of an ANN. A large enough ANN becomes a look up table. A UTM could be conceived (simply?) as some sort of an index for all the algorithms (possible or real). Rather than extending out in time (complicated, infinitely extensible tape), it's extended out in space and hierarchically in "orders". (I feel sure this is someone else's idea, but have no idea where I got it ... sounds a bit like the parallel worlds interpretation of QM, though ... maybe Deutsch?) Given a spatially extended UTM, (specific algorithm) death would *not* be necessary. But some conception of interruptibility or parallelism seems necessary also. If a UTM couldn't stop, mid-algorithm, to work on some other problem, then perhaps death is still needed?
On 10/30/2017 01:32 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > My actual question is more like: Is death universal or is a finite lifetime > just a sufficient solution found by evolution (and carbon-based life)? Must > memories be purged for progress, or is it just that that they _can_ be > without particular harm to the species? > > There was a piece on 60 minutes last night about Adolfo Kaminsky who forged > thousands of official documents to protect Jews in France. His colleagues > reflected on their accomplishments and didn't reflect on danger in what they > were doing at the time, perhaps because they were so young. > > It could be that the high-order aspects of wisdom are cognitively too costly > (operationally) at some point. Diminishing returns on complexity.. Delays > on action are as dangerous as imprudent actions. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
