William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The TM implementation not only has no relevance to the behavior of
GoL(-T) at all, it also has even less relevance to the
On 08/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The TM implementation not only has no relevance to the behavior of
From: William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Laptops aren't TMs.
Please read the wiki entry to see that my laptop isn't a TM.
But your laptop can certainly implement/simulate a Turing Machine (which was
the obvious point of the post(s) that you replied to).
Seriously, people, can't we lose all
On 08/10/2007, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Laptops aren't TMs.
Please read the wiki entry to see that my laptop isn't a TM.
But your laptop can certainly implement/simulate a Turing Machine (which was
the obvious point of the post(s) that you
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:17:30PM -0400, J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
This is the same kind of reasoning that leads Bostrom et al to believe that
we
are probably living in a simulation, which may be turned off at any ti
On 10/7/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is having the unfortunate side-effect that as each point is
presented, you are interpreting it and (especially) running on ahead
with it in directions that do not have any relation to my argument.
'Running ahead' part can be incorrect
It's probably worth pointing out that Conway's Life is not only Turing
universal but that it can host self-replicating machines. In other words, an
infinite randomly initialized Life board will contain living creatures
which will multiply and grow, and ultimately come to dominate the entire
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[rest of post and other recent ones agreed with]
It remains to be seen whether replicating Life patterns could evolve to become
intelligent.
No formal proof, but informally: definitely no. Our universe has all
sorts of special properties
On 10/7/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[rest of post and other recent ones agreed with]
It remains to be seen whether replicating Life patterns could evolve to
become
intelligent.
No formal proof, but informally:
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, given that it's Turing complete, it should have all forms of
intelligent entities too (probably including us), they just may be
non-trivial to observe.
Oh potentially yes, they just won't spontaneously evolve from the
primordial slime
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence through evolution in
time-efficient way, and poses a question: what is the simplest
instance of this class?
On 10/7/07,
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence through evolution in
time-efficient way, and poses a question: what is
I'm not convinced, primarily because I would have said the same thing about
actual bacteria vs humans if I didn't have the counterexample.
One human generation time is 100,000 bacteria gen times -- and it only takes
about 133 generations of bacteria to consume the the entire mass of the
On Sunday 07 October 2007 01:55:14 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence
It depends on acceptance of self-sampling assumption (SSA), which is a
rather arbitrary thing: why for example it's considered plausible to
see yourself selected from set of all humans, and not for example all
primates or all same-gender-humans? I only see it possible to select
worlds where some
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not convinced, primarily because I would have said the same thing about
actual bacteria vs humans if I didn't have the counterexample.
Granted, all I have is armchair reasoning, and it's certainly not
unreasonable for you to fail to be
RESTORE OCT-2007.SAV
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the same kind of reasoning that leads Bostrom et al to believe that we
are probably living in a simulation, which may be turned off at any ti
Exactly :)
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question for you, Will.
Without loss of generality, I can change my use of Game of Life to a new
system called GoL(-T) which is all of the possible GoL instantiations
EXCEPT the tiny subset that contain
Imagine a skin of self-reinforcing patterns. A simple version would be immune
to a change in any one cell, more complicated versions would automatically
replicate to repair damage involving two, three, four, or more cells. Inside,
complicated structures could replicate without being all that
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My stock example: planetary motion. Newton (actually Tycho Brahe,
Kepler, et al) observed some global behavior in this system: the orbits
are elliptical and motion follows Kepler's other laws. This corresponds
to
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
In case anyone else wonders about the same question, I will explain why
the Turing machine equivalence has no relevance at all.
Re-read what you wrote, substituting the phrase Turing machine, for
each and
Andrew Babian wrote:
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind. Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for
Linas Vepstas said:
To amplify: the rules for GoL are simple. The finding what they imply
are not. The rues for gravity are simple. Finding what they impl are
not.
And I would argue that the rules of Friendliness are simple and the finding
what they imply are not.
-
This list is
Andrew Babian said:
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is
with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind.
Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper I did emphasize the prediction part at
first, but I then went on (immediately) to talk about the problem of
finding hypotheses to test. Crucially, I ask if it is reasonable to
suppose that Conway could have
Richard,
Any problem can be stated as search for results that satisfy given
constraints. What you state here doesn't seem to contradict what I
wrote before. In following paragraph you describe it:
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper I did
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us
I am sorry, Mike, I have to give up.
What you say is so far away from what I said in the paper that there is
just no longer any point of contact.
Best wishes,
Richard Loosemore
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper
Vladimir,
I say the following without meaning to be critical.
In what I wrote yesterday, I was trying to establish the first point in
the sequence of points that make up the argument in my paper.
What is happening, in this discussion, is that you are trying to ask me
to present the entire
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question for you, Will.
Without loss of generality, I can change my use of Game of Life to a new
system called GoL(-T) which is all of the possible GoL instantiations
EXCEPT the tiny subset that contain Turing Machine
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry, Mike, I have to give up.
What you say is so far away from what I said in the paper that there is
just no longer any point of contact.
oh. So we weren't having a discussion. You were having a lecture and
I was missing the
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
It has to do
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all the interesting creatures given only the rules?
The question
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hear you, but let me quickly summarize the reason why I introduced GoL
as an example.
Thank you. I appreciate the confirmation of understanding my point.
I have observed many cases where the back and forth
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:46:02 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Oh, and, by the way, the widely accepted standard for what counts as a
scientific theory is -- as any scientist will be able to tell you --
that it has to make its prediction without becoming larger
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns from the rules (equivalent to predicting planetary dynamics
given the inverse square law
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:13:32 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Try walking into any physics department in the world and saying Is it
okay if most theories are so complicated that they dwarf the size and
complexity of the system that they purport to explain?
You're conflating a theory and
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns from the rules (equivalent to predicting planetary dynamics
given
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My stock example: planetary motion. Newton (actually Tycho Brahe,
Kepler, et al) observed some global behavior in this system: the orbits
are elliptical and motion follows Kepler's other laws. This corresponds
to someone seeing Game of
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
In case anyone else wonders about the same question, I will explain why
the Turing machine equivalence has no relevance at all.
Re-read what you wrote, substituting the phrase Turing machine, for
each and every occurrance of
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:39:51PM -0400, J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:13:32 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Try walking into any physics department in the world and saying Is it
okay if most theories are so complicated that they dwarf the size and
complexity of
On 10/5/07, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be abstract, you could subsitute semi-Thue system, context-free
grammar, first-order logic, Lindenmeyer system, history monoid,
etc. for GoL, and still get an equivalent argument about complexity
and predicatability. Singling out GoL as
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind. Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for the demos.
-
This
All interesting (and complex!) phenomena happen at the edges/fringe. Boundary
conditions seem to be a requisite for complexity. Life originated on a planet
(10E-10 of space), on its surface (10E-10 of its volume). 99.99+% of the
fractal curve area is boring, it's just the edges of a very small
In my complex systems paper I make extensive use of John Horton Conway's
little cellular automaton called Game of Life (GoL), but two people have
made objections to this on the grounds that GoL can be used to implement
a Turing Machine, and is therefore an example of me not knowing what I
am
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:06:11 am, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As far as we can tell, GoL is an example of that class of system in
which we simply never will be able to produce a theory in which we
plug in the RULES of GoL, and get out a list of all the patterns in GoL
that are
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:06:11 am, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As far as we can tell, GoL is an example of that class of system in
which we simply never will be able to produce a theory in which we
plug in the RULES of GoL, and get out a list of all the patterns
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do it then. You can start with interesting=cyclic.
should GoL gliders be considered cyclic?
I personally think the candidate-AGI that finds a glider to be similar
to a local state of cells from N iterations earlier to be particularly
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do it then. You can start with interesting=cyclic.
should GoL gliders be considered cyclic?
I personally think the candidate-AGI that finds a glider to be similar
to a local state of cells from N iterations earlier
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
It has to do with the argument in my paper.
Richard Loosemore
On
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all the interesting creatures given only the rules?
The question of getting something
60 matches
Mail list logo
