Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings

[immortal . discoveries]

Typo - *it is true.
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M1b1996cd3bd777d6b2af45f0
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings

[immortal . discoveries]

Thought isn't faster than light, brain waves don't move that fast. And humans 
are much slower than computers doing tasks. This is part of our society, is it 
true.

In the 4 given statements Matt gave, either we are in a sim or in the base 
physics.
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M25f8079cbf1081691369cb0a
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings

[Matt Mahoney]

If we are living in a simulation then of course anything is possible. It
isn't a law that nothing is faster than light. It's an observation. Here
are at least 4 possibilities, listed in decreasing order of complexity, and
therefore increasing likelihood if Occam's Razor holds outside the
simulation.

1. Only your brain exists. All of your sensory inputs are simulated by a
model of a non-existent outside world. The universe running this simulation
is completely different and we can know nothing about it. It might be that
space, time, matter, and life are abstract concepts that exist only in the
model.

2. Your mind, memories, and existence are also simulated. You didn't exist
one second ago.

3. The observable universe is modeled in a few hundred bits of code tuned
to allow intelligence life to evolve. In this case the speed of light is in
the code.

4. All possible universes with all possible laws of physics exist and we
necessary observe one that allows intelligent life to evolve.

There may be other possibilities that a simulation wouldn't allow us to
imagine.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, 6:49 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <
nano...@live.com> wrote:

> It's easier to break a mold than gluing it back together again.
>
> Let's not male science our god, nor our demon. It's still up to us to
> procure meaning from chaos, or at least to describe such an observation via
> an appropriate, qualitative and quantitative language.
>
> I'm in favor of experimental science, but there has to be a discipline
> involved, else it's just hacking away till you've deforested the forest.
>
> Your point on the speed of light? Most interesting. Perhaps a
> more-practical example of "going faster than the speed of light" would be
> useful. I suppose, it'll all end in a static, spot of white light, wouldn't
> it? Just as it began.
>
> Ask yourself this; would an AGI entity be having this kind of discussion,
> and if so, how would it flow?
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* johnr...@polyplexic.com 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 01 September 2019 23:54
> *To:* AGI 
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings
>
> On Friday, August 30, 2019, at 2:31 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies
> wrote:
>
> But, I strongly disagree with the following statement, for it contains an
> inherent contradiction.
>
> "It is allowed to break physics or invent new ones in a virtual world."
>
> No, they should not be allowed. The definition of engineering, as putting
> method to science, denounces such anarchism. Engineers have to take method
> and use it in context of science. If no science exists yet, they seemingly
> have the obligation to try equally hard to develop and formalize it.
>
>
> What I meant, for example that old saying, what goes faster than the speed
> of light? Thought. I always considered that stupid but it actually isn’t.
> If you have models in a software virtual world they can break all kinds of
> physics (and mathematics) in an attempt to shortcut to solutions and/or
> model more accurately with existing resources.
>
> A Few wise Yogi quotes:
> "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
> there is."
> "We made too many wrong mistakes."
> "If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be."
>
> What is one way to bypass combinatorial explosions? Break rules.  Shhh
> it’s a secret :) and it’s OK. That’s how things work.
>
> John
>
> *Artificial General Intelligence List *
> / AGI / see discussions  +
> participants  + delivery
> options  Permalink
> 
>

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M35540f43ca4f7b08a2d379b1
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings

[Nanograte Knowledge Technologies]

It's easier to break a mold than gluing it back together again.

Let's not male science our god, nor our demon. It's still up to us to procure 
meaning from chaos, or at least to describe such an observation via an 
appropriate, qualitative and quantitative language.

I'm in favor of experimental science, but there has to be a discipline 
involved, else it's just hacking away till you've deforested the forest.

Your point on the speed of light? Most interesting. Perhaps a more-practical 
example of "going faster than the speed of light" would be useful. I suppose, 
it'll all end in a static, spot of white light, wouldn't it? Just as it began.

Ask yourself this; would an AGI entity be having this kind of discussion, and 
if so, how would it flow?




From: johnr...@polyplexic.com 
Sent: Sunday, 01 September 2019 23:54
To: AGI 
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings

On Friday, August 30, 2019, at 2:31 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote:
But, I strongly disagree with the following statement, for it contains an 
inherent contradiction.

"It is allowed to break physics or invent new ones in a virtual world."

No, they should not be allowed. The definition of engineering, as putting 
method to science, denounces such anarchism. Engineers have to take method and 
use it in context of science. If no science exists yet, they seemingly have the 
obligation to try equally hard to develop and formalize it.

What I meant, for example that old saying, what goes faster than the speed of 
light? Thought. I always considered that stupid but it actually isn’t. If you 
have models in a software virtual world they can break all kinds of physics 
(and mathematics) in an attempt to shortcut to solutions and/or model more 
accurately with existing resources.

A Few wise Yogi quotes:
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice 
there is."
"We made too many wrong mistakes."
"If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be."

What is one way to bypass combinatorial explosions? Break rules.  Shhh it’s a 
secret :) and it’s OK. That’s how things work.

John

Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / 
see discussions + 
participants + delivery 
options 
Permalink

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M9b29a1bfee52310754e0969b
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription