From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't compute the universe within this universe
because the computation
would have to include itself.
Exactly. That is why our model of physics must be probabilistic
I would like to state a middle ground between the viewpoints cited in the
email below:
It seems to me that if one had a man-made computer capable of computing all
the astronically-large and planks-length-fine state information and
computations that take place in all of reality at the level
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[C]. Because of B, the universe can be simulated in
Turing Machine.
This is where I start to feel uncomfortable.
The theory cannot be tested directly because there is no such thing as a real
Turing machine. But we can show that the
Matt,
I understand your explanation, but you haven't answered my main
problem here: why to simulate the universe we only need physics, but
not chemistry, biology, psychology, history, philosophy, ...? Why not
to say all human knowledge?
Pei
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand your explanation, but you haven't answered my main
problem here: why to simulate the universe we only need physics, but
not chemistry, biology, psychology, history, philosophy, ...? Why not
to say all human knowledge?
An
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An exact description of the quantum state of the universe gives you
everything else.
Why? Just because it is the smallest object we know? Is this a
self-evident commonsense, or a conclusion from physics?
As I said before,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
An exact description of the quantum state of the universe gives you
everything else.
Why? Just because it is the smallest object we know? Is this a
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there are physicists who think in principle the stock market can be
accurately predicated from quantum theory alone? I'd like to get a
reference on that. ;-)
Pei, I think a majority -- or at least a substantial
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there are physicists who think in principle the stock
market can be
accurately predicated from quantum theory alone? I'd
like to get a
reference on that. ;-)
If you had a Turing machine, yes.
It also assumes you know which of the
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real flaw in physics-based reductionism is that you
cannot explain *evolution*/*creativity*.
The explanation is the anthropic principle. If the physics of our universe did
not allow for evolution of intelligent life, then we
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there are physicists who think in principle the stock
market can be
accurately predicated from quantum theory alone? I'd
like to get a
reference on that. ;-)
If
This is why I keep banging on about Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred.It
deals precisely with this. And it makes the connection - as AI/AGI-ers
completely fail to do between all kinds of creativity - from low-level
evolutionary creativity to high-level human and social creativity. (BTW
I note that physicists have frequently, throughout the last few hundred
years, expressed confidence in their understanding of the whole universe ...
and then been proven wrong by later generations of physicists...
Personally I find it highly unlikely that the current physical understanding
of the
While I am actually a fan of Occam's Razor as a guiding principle for AGI, I
really don't think AGI should base itself on assumptions like physics is
computable
In fact, this assumption seems to me an egregious *violation* of Occam's
Razor!!
Occam's Razor says we should make the minimum
Ben,
Kauffman does not provide a new worldview, certainly - he merely identifies the
need for one - and he shows how this is necessary at every level from basic
physics to economics and our psychology of thinking. He crucially shows that
this worldview must incorporate the creative principle
If I can assume that Turing machines exist, then I can assume perfect
knowledge of the state of the universe. It doesn't change my conclusion that
the universe is computable.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1)
Turing machines are mathematical abstractions and don't physically exist
Ben, you missed my point. We use Turing machines in all kinds of computer
science proofs, even though you can't build one. Turing machines have infinite
memory, so it is not unreasonable to assume that if Turing machines did exist,
then one could store the 2^409 bits needed to describe the
You can't compute the universe within this universe because the computation
would have to include itself.
Also there's not enough energy to power the computation.
But if the universe is not what we think it is, perhaps it is computable
since all kinds of assumptions are made about it,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is not that AGI should model things at the level of atoms.
I didn't blame anyone for doing that. What I said is: to predict the
environment as a Turing Machine (symbol by symbol) is just like to
construct a
Matt,
How about the following argument:
A. Since in principle all human knowledge about the universe can be
expressed in English, we say that the universe exists as a English
essay --- though we don't know which one yet.
B. Because of A, the ultimate scientific research method is to
I am not suggesting that we model the universe by an exact computation. That is
impossible (as John Rose pointed out) because the computer would have to be
inside the universe it is modeling.
I am suggesting that Occam's Razor holds in the observable universe because the
only requirement for
22 matches
Mail list logo
