AW: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Mike Tintner wrote, You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this certainly not universal, but v. common here). If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a new way for chess pieces to move - and therefore develop a new form of chess (without any preparation other than some knowledge about different rules and how different pieces in different games move). Or something like get your opponent to take back his move before he removes his hand from the piece - where some use of psychology, say, might be appropriate rather than anything to do directly with chess itself. In your example you leave the domain of chess rules. There *are* already emergent problems just within the domain of chess. For example I could see, that my chess program tends to move the queen too early. Or it tends to attack the other side too late and so on. The programmer will then have the difficult task to change heuristics and parameters of the program to get the right emergent behavior. But this is possible. I think you suppose that creativity is something very strange and mythical and cannot be done by machines. I don't think so. Creativity is mainly the ability to use and combine *all* the pieces of knowledge you have. The creativity of humans seems to be so mythical just because the knowledge data base is so huge. Remember how many bits your brain receives every second for many years! A chess program has only knowledge of chess. And that's the main reason it just can do chess. But within chess, it can be creative. You see an inherent algorithmic problem to obtain creativity but it is in fact just mainly a problem of knowledge. So has the chess program the same creativity as a human if you are fair and restrict just to the domain and knowledge of chess? The answer is yes! Very good experts of chess often say that a certain move of a chess program is creative, spirited, clever and so on. - Matthias --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the implications for their own field http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not reducible. Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum understanding in the class of systems that I am most interested in: BEGIN QUOTE: Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered formally undecidable. We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions, says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed. This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena, says Gu. Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level. Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results really interesting, but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems, says Barrow. Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles, he says. END QUOTE. I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions... Now where have I heard that before, I wonder? Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
But Richard, 1) none of us are **trying** to predict highly specific properties of the state of an AGI at a certain point in time, based on the AGIs micro-level configuration 2) we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems ... arguing that certain natural systems are hard to predict in some senses is one thing, whereas arguing that some specific kind of hard-to-predictness is **intrinsic** to intelligence (natural or engineered) is another -- Ben G On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the implications for their own field http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not reducible. Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum understanding in the class of systems that I am most interested in: BEGIN QUOTE: Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered formally undecidable. We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions, says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed. This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena, says Gu. Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level. Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results really interesting, but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems, says Barrow. Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles, he says. END QUOTE. I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions... Now where have I heard that before, I wonder? Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically - and correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of science is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every form throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be AGI. In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues: we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how you get species evolving from each other with creative, scientifically unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the designer). In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human and animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain and the evolutionary path of AGI's). Richard: Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the implications for their own field http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not reducible. Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum understanding in the class of systems that I am most interested in: BEGIN QUOTE: Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered formally undecidable. We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions, says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed. This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena, says Gu. Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level. Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results really interesting, but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems, says Barrow. Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles, he says. END QUOTE. I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-) ... On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically - and correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of science is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every form throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be AGI. In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues: we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how you get species evolving from each other with creative, scientifically unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the designer). In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human and animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain and the evolutionary path of AGI's). Richard: Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the implications for their own field http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not reducible. Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum understanding in the class of systems that I am most interested in: BEGIN QUOTE: Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered formally undecidable. We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions, says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed. This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena, says Gu. Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level. Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results really interesting, but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems, says Barrow. Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-) ... Ben, His argument (like mine), is that AGI is *algorithmically* impossible, (Similarly he is arguing only that our *present* mechanistic worldview is inadequate). I can't vouch for it, since he doesn't explicitly address AGI as distinct from the powers of algorithms, but I would be v. surprised if he was arguing that AGI is impossible, period (no?). I would've thought that he would argue something like that just as we need a revolutionary new mechanistic worldview, so we need a revolutionary approach to AGI, (and not just a few tweaks :) ). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Nice! As someone who knows a thing or two, though, I'd like to point out that the undecidability of one thing from another thing depends on the choice of logic. For example, everything else being equal, if we state the basic rules of the system in both first-order logic and in ZF set theory, far more will be undecidable from the first-order characterization. So while it is convenient to make blanked statements of the form global property X is undecidable from the local interactions, it isn't quite accurate. This means that in principle all we need is a stronger logic-- we don't necessarily need to determine the results experimentally just because they appear undecidable. But, doing an experiment may be (immensely) more convenient. This has at least some relevance to symbolic-style AGI, because one of the primary examples of undecidable facts is the consistency of a particular logic-- it is only decidable in a stronger logic. I don't know if I can transfer this result to say the eventual optimality of an optimization process is only decidable by a stronger optimization process... which would be more directly relevant... --Abram On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the implications for their own field http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not reducible. Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum understanding in the class of systems that I am most interested in: BEGIN QUOTE: Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered formally undecidable. We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions, says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed. This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena, says Gu. Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level. Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results really interesting, but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems, says Barrow. Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles, he says. END QUOTE. I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions... Now where have I heard that before, I wonder? Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
AW: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
The problem of the emergent behavior already arises within a chess program which visits millions of chess positions within a second. I think the problem of the emergent behavior equals the fine tuning problem which I have already mentioned: We will know, that the main architecture of our AGI works. But in our first experiments we will observe a behavior of the AGI which we don't want to have. We will have several parameters which we can change. The big question will be: Which values of the parameters will let the AGI do the right things. This could be an important problem for the development of AGI because in my opinion the difference between a human and a monkey is only fine tuning. And nature needed millions of years for this fine tuning. I think there is no way to avoid this problem but this problem is no show stopper. - Matthias Mike Tintner wrote: This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically - and correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of science is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every form throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be AGI. In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues: we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how you get species evolving from each other with creative, scientifically unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the designer). In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human and animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain and the evolutionary path of AGI's). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Matthias, You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this certainly not universal, but v. common here). If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a new way for chess pieces to move - and therefore develop a new form of chess (without any preparation other than some knowledge about different rules and how different pieces in different games move). Or something like get your opponent to take back his move before he removes his hand from the piece - where some use of psychology, say, might be appropriate rather than anything to do directly with chess itself. IOW by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving the problem,* (what kinds of objects or moves are relevant), let alone have a set of instructions to hold your hand every step of the way - and the eventual solution will involve crossing hitherto unrelated domains. That, as Kauffman also insists, is an absolute show stopper. Which is why the show that is AGI cannot not only not go on, but hasn't even started. No form of logic or maths or programming - no preexisting frame - is sufficient to deal with such problems - and cross domains in surprising ways. If those are the only relevant disciplines you know, then you will indeed have major difficulties understanding creative problems. They do not prepare you. PS Ditto all evolutionary steps present creative problems of discovery. For example - give me a *biological* piece of the puzzle that explains how humans/apes with relatively curved spines acquired erect spines (an explanation that reveals something about the *internal* processes by which permanent changes in the body's blueprints come about - as opposed to something about external, natural selection). Matthias: The problem of the emergent behavior already arises within a chess program which visits millions of chess positions within a second. I think the problem of the emergent behavior equals the fine tuning problem which I have already mentioned: We will know, that the main architecture of our AGI works. But in our first experiments we will observe a behavior of the AGI which we don't want to have. We will have several parameters which we can change. The big question will be: Which values of the parameters will let the AGI do the right things. This could be an important problem for the development of AGI because in my opinion the difference between a human and a monkey is only fine tuning. And nature needed millions of years for this fine tuning. I think there is no way to avoid this problem but this problem is no show stopper. - Matthias Mike Tintner wrote: This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically - and correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of science is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every form throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be AGI. In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues: we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to **engineer** systems Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how you get species evolving from each other with creative, scientifically unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the designer). In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human and animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain and the evolutionary path of AGI's). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Matthias (cont), Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical) problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for either the US or the world, that will actually work? No show-stopper for your AGI? [How would you apply logic here, Abram?] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Matthias (cont), Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical) problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for either the US or the world, that will actually work? No show-stopper for your AGI? [How would you apply logic here, Abram?] Mike, I am quite sure that an AGI with human-level general intelligence ... and access to Mathematica and scripting languages ... would be able to sort through the problems of the global financial system far better than any human ... The fact that we have not yet written an AGI that can do it, doesn't tell us anything about the potential of AGI Ben G --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Mike, by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving the problem,* (what kinds of objects or moves are relevant), let alone have a set of instructions to hold your hand every step of the way - and the eventual solution will involve crossing hitherto unrelated domains. That, as Kauffman also insists, is an absolute show stopper. Which is why the show that is AGI cannot not only not go on, but hasn't even started. This is just an argument by reference to authority ... Stu Kauffman wrote a book saying X, therefore we're supposed to believe X is true??? He certainly did not convincingly demonstrate in any of his books or papers that AGI cannot deal with creativity in the same sense that humans can... These discussions get **so** tiresome... I am soon going to stop participating in threads of this nature... ben g --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Mike Tintner wrote: Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-) ... Ben, His argument (like mine), is that AGI is *algorithmically* impossible, (Similarly he is arguing only that our *present* mechanistic worldview is inadequate). I can't vouch for it, since he doesn't explicitly address AGI as distinct from the powers of algorithms, but I would be v. surprised if he was arguing that AGI is impossible, period (no?). I would've thought that he would argue something like that just as we need a revolutionary new mechanistic worldview, so we need a revolutionary approach to AGI, (and not just a few tweaks :) ). I would go both further and not as far. Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms. I.e., choices. This is clearly impossible. To me this implies (but not proves) that there are an infinite number of possible futures descending from any precisely defined state. As such, no AGI will be able to solve this problem. It can't even make probability based choices. OTOH, given a few local biases to start with, and reasoning with a relatively short headway from current time, Bayesian predictions work pretty well, and don't require infinite resources. It's my further suspicion that we are equipped with sets of domain biases, and that at any one time one particular set is dominant. This I see as primarily a simplifying approach, but one which reduces the amount of computation needed in any situation, allowing faster near-future predictions. So what we have is something less that totally general. Call it an A(g)I. It has a general mode that it can use when it's got plenty of time, but that's not what it uses in real-time, and it's never run as a dominant mode, only as a moderately high priority task. And the general mode tends to get stuck on insoluble (or just too complex) problems until it times out. Sometimes it saves the state and returns to it later, but sometimes a meta-heuristic says Forget about it. That game's not worth the candle. The problem comes when you take the G in AGI too seriously. There is no existence proof that such a thing can exist in finite space/time/energy situations. But you should be able to get closer to it than people have evolved to demonstrate. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Ben, I am frankly flabberghasted by your response. I have given concrete example after example of creative, domain-crossing problems, where obviously there is no domain or frame that can be applied to solving the problem (as does Kauffman) - and at no point do you engage with any of them - or have the least suggestion as to how a logical/mathematical AGI could go about solving them, or identify a suitable domain.. On the contrary,it is *you* who repeatedly resort to essentially *reference to authority* arguments - saying read my book, my paper etc etc - and what basically amounts to the tired line I have the proof, I just don't have the time to write it in the margin (Or it's too complicated for your pretty little head.) Be honest - when and where have you ever addressed creative problems? [Just count how many problems I have raised).. Just as it is obvious that I know next to nothing about programming, it is also obvious that you have v. little experience of discussing creative problemsolving - at, I stress, a *metacognitive* level. (And nor, AFAIK, do any AGI-ers - only partly excepting Minsky). All this stands in total, stark contrast to any discussion of logical or mathematical, problems, where you are always delighted to engage in detail, and v. helpful and constructive - and do not make excuses to cover up your inexperience. Mike, by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving the problem,* (what kinds of objects or moves are relevant), let alone have a set of instructions to hold your hand every step of the way - and the eventual solution will involve crossing hitherto unrelated domains. That, as Kauffman also insists, is an absolute show stopper. Which is why the show that is AGI cannot not only not go on, but hasn't even started. This is just an argument by reference to authority ... Stu Kauffman wrote a book saying X, therefore we're supposed to believe X is true??? He certainly did not convincingly demonstrate in any of his books or papers that AGI cannot deal with creativity in the same sense that humans can... These discussions get **so** tiresome... I am soon going to stop participating in threads of this nature... ben g -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
On the contrary,it is *you* who repeatedly resort to essentially *reference to authority* arguments - saying read my book, my paper etc etc - and what basically amounts to the tired line I have the proof, I just don't have the time to write it in the margin No. I do not claim to have any proof. I claim to have a rational argument. And, **I have already taken the time to write it down**. By the way, what Fermat wrote was that he did not have **room** to fit his proof in the margin. Not time. There is not room enough to write my arguments for my AGI approach in emails, but there is room to write them in books, which is what I have done. If you don't want to take time to read them, or don't have the technical background, that's fine ... but please don't criticize me for not being willing to take the time to write my ideas down or present them to the world. It is simply not true. -- Ben G --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Charles, Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm... Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms. Yep. I.e., choices. This is clearly impossible. To me this implies (but not proves) that there are an infinite number of possible futures descending from any precisely defined state. Not quite. An infinite number of axioms may be needed, but there is a right and wrong here! We cannot choose any axioms we like. Well, we can, but if we choose the wrong ones we will eventually derive a contradiction. When we choose the right ones, we can't know that we have... we just hold our breath and hope that no contradiction arises. :) --Abram --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Abram Demski wrote: Charles, Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm... Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms. Yep. I.e., choices. This is clearly impossible. To me this implies (but not proves) that there are an infinite number of possible futures descending from any precisely defined state. Not quite. An infinite number of axioms may be needed, but there is a right and wrong here! We cannot choose any axioms we like. Well, we can, but if we choose the wrong ones we will eventually derive a contradiction. When we choose the right ones, we can't know that we have... we just hold our breath and hope that no contradiction arises. :) --Abram Sorry. Thinking on it you are correct. Merely because the math ends up consistent doesn't mean that it matches reality. But we can't know until after, quite possibly long after, we choose the axiom. Which furthers the need for built in biases. (I wish I'd realized your point, it would have made my argument stronger.) OTOH, this is an argument by analogy, so it's not certain anyway. It might be possible to derive a proof, but I sure couldn't do it. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
