Glen sed:
/Excellent! Thanks. Robinson's words sound a little Chicken Little
to me. But the focus on //_open_//is something I'm committed to. I
still waffle about whether the logic(s) of the universe are
open-ended (by which I mean truly novel events and structures can
occur) or not (by which I mean, all seemingly new structures were
programmed in the whole time, which also implies things about the
universality of any singular logic). I want it to be open. //
////
//And the only way we can falsify my tendency to believe it is open
is to find evidence that it's closed, to reduce everything to a, one
singular, GUT ... and, as time goes by, I'm steadily being disabused
of my beliefs in the openness of anything. But even if everything's
closed, there are sub-problems therein, //*interesting*//ways in
which it is closed that make it //*seem*//open. Systems that might
tolerate multiple types of closure, where some relations are closed
and others open. Etc. That's why logic(s) that tolerate
inconsistency are so cool (to me).
/
I like this formulation.
I've a friend who describes this as: "The laws of the universe might
be pre-determined but the outcomes are not pre-stateable" another way of
stating the "halting problem" in a cosmic rather than just
CS/Algorithmic context?
I am just now (this past month or so) returning to my own maunderings
that come and go on the implications of Quantum Theory and in particular
according to variations on Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler>. It *feels*
like this implies both "open" AND "closed", based on *framing*.
"All things are possible, only some are more *interesting* than
others?"
Ensemble members of such an ensemble multiverse include many where
"causal" logics do not hold, but in those, what *we* know of as
consciousness would have not meaning/traction, so *we* (being apparently
conscious by some definition?) or anything recognizable to us as
conscious would not exist therein?
This, of course, is sweetly confounded by your ideation "/That's why
logic(s) that tolerate inconsistency are so cool (to me)." /(or maybe
I'm trying to be too consistent in my thinking about what qualifies for
consistence?)
/"The universe is flux, life is opinion"/ - Marcus Aurelius
Stumble,
- Steve
On 1/19/23 10:05 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
I coined a new subject to relieve DaveW from having to see his name
over and over...
I'm sympathetic with *all* the points of view expressed here, though
not always simultaneously ;)
As /homo faber/ and /homo sapiens/, it is natural that we have
instincts and cultural habits around "making" and "thinking" our way
out of our predicaments and it might not be too surprising if there
were a (collective) Dunning-Kruger effect in our society helping to
drive us forward from being the early hominids whose ability with
broken stones and sharpened sticks to the
mutual-assured-destruction/climate-collapse collective creatures that
we have become.
It is deep in my nature to want to fiddle with things (make) and ideas
(think) whether experience tells me that it turns out well or not. I
am probably more likely to "muck" with things than many here, so I am
(therefore) sympathetic with ideas which in the extreme become things
like "geoengineering" and "post/trans humanism" and it is hard for me
NOT to cheer every SpaceX launch and the science-fiction trope of
humanity spreading to fill the solar system (Moon, Mars,
Main/Kuiper/Trojan Asteroids, ice/gas giant moons, cum-Dyson Sphere)
and the Galaxy(ies)!
Yet, I cringe a little every time we throw over some "evil we (think
we) know" for some mirage of a bit of "pie in the sky" (pie in your
eye?). This makes me *such* a wet-blanket neo-luddite on virtually
every topic, whilst being a bit of a split personality at the same
time, cheering/hurrying toward the inevitable moment when "the next
cool thing" becomes "WTF, didn't anyone think before they did that?"
answered by "it seemed like a good idea at the time"!
But I also have a fondness for ideating on what it would mean for
humans to "slow our roll" and "look inward" (both personally and
collectively) long enough for the earth-systems we are running
over/overdriving to catch up. But it might be deep in our "survival
instincts" to optimize and leverage at every opportunity even if
sometimes it looks like we are nothing but techno-utopian lemmings
diving off a cliff of complexity of our own making. "Be fecund,
multiply, and innovate like crazy!"
It can be hard (or weirding) to live across this spectrum and
therefore tend to time-multiplex between those extremes, trying to
remember enough of one while I'm experiencing the other for some of
the "tempering" DaveW references.
We talk here often of predictive vs explanatory models, of
epistimology and ontologies. And in this thread "what would change
your mind?" which is similar to "how do you know what you know?". My
own answer to the first question is roughly "I won't know until it
happens" and the second is "I don't know, but I am always interested
in finding out (more)"
Mumble,
- Steve
On 1/19/23 8:52 AM, Prof David West wrote:
My optimism is tempered, and less than Pieters.
/"When we contemplate the shocking derangement of human affairs which
now prevails in most civilized countries, including our own, even the
best minds are puzzled and uncertain in their attempts to grasp the
situation.The world seems to demand a moral and economic regeneration
which it is dangerous to postpone, but as yet impossible to imagine,
let alone direct./
/We have unprecedented conditions to deal with and novel adjustments
to make—there can be no doubt of that. We also have a great stock of
scientific knowledge unknown to our grandfathers with which to
operate. So novel are the conditions, so copious the knowledge, that
we must undertake the arduous task of reconsidering a great part of
the opinions about man and his relations to his fellow-men which have
been handed down to us by previous generations who lived in far other
conditions and who possessed far less information about the world and
themselves./
*/We have, however, first to create an unprecedented attitude of mind
to cope with unprecedented conditions, and to utilize unprecedented
knowledge. This is the preliminary. and most difficult, step to be
taken—far more difficult that one would suspect who fails to realize
that in order to take it we must overcome inveterate natural
tendencies and artificial habits of long standing. How are we to put
ourselves in a position to think of thiigs that we not only never
though of before, but are most reluctant to question? In short, how
are we to rid ourselves of our fond prejudices and _open our minds_?/*"
Those words are from someone few have heard of: James Harvey
Robinson, from his book /The Mind in the Making/ published,
originally, in 1921. (republished in 2017 by Vigeo Press)
The optimism of Altman you quoted is, in my opinion, possible only if
we can "open our minds" and shed antiquated minds and
counter-productive modes of thinking.
Robinson, by the way does not propose an alternative, per se, but
does an excellent job of baring the various kinds of thinking and
their origins fro the "savage mind" to the scientific revolution.
davew
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
*Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism.*
Yes, sadly the world is unequal and those at the bottom of the
economic ladder just don't get a good deal.
On the positive side, looking back at the history of mankind there
is evidence that it is now better to live than ever in the past for
the large majority of humankind. This is true even though it is the
sad truth that it's very far from perfect; human suffering is a
reality, Glen's comment is sad but true.
The question of course is whether it will continue to go better?
It's just impossible to know the future. One person can believe
it'll go better in the future, another that it'll be worse, each
with tons of good arguments.
I for one, embrace the optimism of Sam Altman, just for completeness
I repeat his quote and give the reference again.
"Intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards
most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting
reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
Taken from
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms :
In conclusion, yes I agree with Glen that there are sadly hidden
elements to all the techno-optimism. but this does not dampen my
enthusiasm for the future triggered by abundant intelligence and energy.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 21:08, glen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that
techno-optimism. E.g.
https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m
On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
>
> The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of
course) will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than
humans in all respects, including come up with
creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing
problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and
then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide
goods and services to all in the world,
>
> Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our
future; intelligence and energy. If we have real
abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be very
different indeed.
>
> To quote Sam Altmen at
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>
:
>
> "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters
towards most things we want. A future where these are not the
limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be
amazingly better."
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior
is what matters. Analog computers will have imperfect
behavior, and there will be leakage between components. A
large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar
for my purposes. The unrolling would be inside a skull, so
somewhat isolated from interference.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
>
> I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion
implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can
tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying
about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by
outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some
sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more
"open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
>
> On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread
some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to
distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.
>
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
