It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable
to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs
are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like
this, anybody who really thinks that and has some real software in mind
has no
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable
to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs
are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like
this, anybody
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is
valuable
to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent
programs
are still waiting on sufficient
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100
physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application
so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate.
Unless you are going to hand-wire some special processor-to-processor
interconnect fabric, this seems probably not to be true...
ben g
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:18 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
Unless you are going to hand-wire some special processor-to-processor
interconnect fabric, this seems probably not to be true...
ben g
On
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to
the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can
structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and
apply it to
the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you
can
structure it to
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My assumption is that the physics of the observable universe is computable
(which is widely believed to be true).
To me, this is another topic where several different claims tangled together.
[A]. Every law or model
--- 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
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just
not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more
powerful than a PC.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
agi
Archives:
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
Matt: An exact description of the quantum state of the universe gives you
everything else.
I want to take what I said a little further, because, though basically
true, it was a little too ethereal.
A physics approach - reducing all things to their fundamental parts/
particles - cannot, I
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI.
It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to
10^6 times more powerful than a PC.
The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect
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
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make this more concrete - a physics/reductionist
approach cannot explain
the *plasticity* of matter. Natural objects are not like
artificial
objects - like a brick wall that can be deconstructed both
analytically and
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,
If you were talking about something actual, then you would have a valid
point. Numbers, though, only exist in so far as they exist in the
theory that you are using to define them. E.g., if I were to claim that
no number larger than the power-set of energy states within the universe
were
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
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI.
It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to
10^6 times more powerful than a PC.
Matt:MT
To make this more concrete - a physics/reductionist
approach cannot explain
the *plasticity* of matter. Natural objects are not like
artificial
objects - like a brick wall that can be deconstructed both
analytically and
physically into precise, discrete parts/bricks.
Yes it can. You
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
Hi,
I was wondering as to the formatwho does what, how...speaking etc
etc.. what sort of airing do the contributors get for their material?
regards
colin
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to let you know that Gino Yu and I are co-organizing a
Workshop on Machine
Consciousness,
Accepted papers will be in two categories
-- oral presentation
-- poster presentation
Oral presentations will be relatively brief and then followed by
discussions, similar to the format of AGI-08
-- Ben G
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi,
I was
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
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the shapes/forms (and range of shapes/forms) of
atoms?
The shapes are given by solving Schrodinger's equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
And how would you or physics derive the properties of
Charles,
OK, but if you argue in that manner, then your original point is a
little strange, doesn't it? Why worry about Godelian incompleteness if
you think incompleteness is just fine?
Therefore, I would assert that it isn't that it leaves *even more*
about numbers left undefined, but that
Matt,
What Mike is saying here may sound odd, but I think there is a
reasonable way of interpreting it in light of the article Richard
Loosemore posted in a recent thread (New Scientist: Why nature can't
be reduced to mathematical laws). So, Mike is entirely correct here
if we interpret the
I actually emailed a gentleman at Sandia one time asking why don't
they use their molecular dynamics setup to extrapolate novel instances
and classes of high-temperature superconductor etc. What I came away
with is you really want to be simulating sub-molecular interactions in
order to extrapolate
42 matches
Mail list logo
