On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> Since you expend calories on things other than getting more calories then
> that implies that every lunch that is sufficient to sustain you must be
> partially free. You get more calories from lunch then you expend getting it.
>
lcome.On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> That is a very interesting point, but in talking about a uniform probability
> distribution over an infinite set you are characterizing the issue as if it
> were the universal characterization that underlies any
Since you expend calories on things other than getting more calories then that
implies that every lunch that is sufficient to sustain you must be partially
free. You get more calories from lunch then you expend getting it. Suppose that
there was some supremely efficient characterization of a
That is a very interesting point, but in talking about a uniform probability
distribution over an infinite set you are characterizing the issue as if it
were the universal characterization that underlies any characterization (of all
possible universal generalizations).
Calories must be expended to get more calories.
Calories must be expended to prevent the loss of calories.
Calories can be exchanged for any other unit of energy.
This axioms are pivotal in making a AGI energy management system.
No mater how elaborate a life form or conscious machine is it
The no free lunch theorem is based on the false premise that it is possible
to have a uniform probability distribution over an infinite set. The
converse proves Occam's Razor.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:39 AM Jim Bromer wrote:
> If there was no such thing as a free lunch then we would all be
If there was no such thing as a free lunch then we would all be living in the
stone age. Every advancement is based on some kind of efficiency. Yes, those
achievements come at a cost. So there may be a relative trade-off but the loss
of generality from a purely imaginary (unattainable ultimate
