Interesting. I've always worried that "observation", the word, gets abused too much.
Marcus' response to my suggestion that unrolled recursion is more observable than recursion is
a good one, which I read as there are different types and orderings to observation or access. I
don't know where Wheeler landed on such a conception. But my framing often lands on the
parallelism hypothesis, that space and time are somehow equivalent. They're not ... obviously.
Everything we experience is deeply parallel. But everything we think/know is deeply serial.
Part of the job of a simulationist is to carve the two apart, decide what needs to happen in
parallel and what needs to be serial in order to trick the user into buying the simulation's
rhetoric. That may well include ensemble techniques like Gelman's multiverse analysis
<http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/multiverse_published.pdf>.
If Wheeler's conception includes some sorts of "inside" boundaries such that "participatory" and
"observation" can be reduced to "this machine observes that machine" ... if that's sufficient for
participation and some sort of "objective reduction" or decoherence, then I'm down. This perspective also bubbles out
into why I almost believe deep learning algorithms suffer, because I don't think suffering is some woowoo supernatural stuff that
needs ambiguously defined things like consciousness.
So-called interactive simulation is, fundamentally, different from rhetorical simulation.
It's participatory. When people ask me about the simulation hypothesis, I rarely have the
opportunity to describe this difference. But with the advent of, and boring habituation
to, "MMO open world" video games, we have a compressed way to describe it.
There are really 2 (or more) games: the one the designers programmed in and the one the
players [re]define when they play. A participatory universe is the 2nd.
I think, rather than using words like "deist", "[a]theist", "buddhist", etc. we
could classify people in terms of how they play MMO open world games. The old farts and weirdos who don't
play video games would provide our leave-N-out test data.
It's also way easier to explain why Twitter is poison and QAnon was inevitable if they understand
the difference between participatory and rhetorical simulation, respectively "do your own
reserch" versus "get on board with the expert narrative". Glitching through a wall
in a video game *can be* very difficult to get right. But you have to commit and do the work. It's
way easier and boring to play the game as the designers intended.
On 1/19/23 10:12, Steve Smith wrote:
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/
