I
wrote a sort-of-review of this book some time ago...
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/OnBiologicalAndDigitalIntelligence.htm
-- Ben
Goertzel
-Original Message-From: Lennart Nilsson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:00
PMTo: everything-list
The discussion of John Ross's theory is off-topic.
However, I would be happy about it anyway, IF I thought it was a good
theory, which I do not.
But I don't feel like taking the time to argue about why i don't think it's
a good theory, so I will continue to ignore the thre
tions
should be too small to make any difference, but I recognize it as an
apparent mathematical loophole, according to which my variant scenarios may
be considered as different from the original quantum eraser experiment.
Comments?
-- Ben Goertzel
Hi,
Oops, I gave the wrong link
I said
> Specifically, I'll refer to the quantum eraser thought experiment
> summarized at
>
> http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
but I meant
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/qnonloc/eraser.htm
Anyway, the essential idea of the two experiments is
Hal,
> > What will the outcome be in these experiments?
>
> It won't make any difference, because the CC is not used in the way you
> imagine. It doesn't have to produce a record and it doesn't have to erase
> any records.
OK, mea culpa, maybe I misunderstood the apparatus and it was not the CC
What if instead of "throwing out" the information you shoot it into a black
hole?
Then presumably the information is really gone so the result should be as if
the information were "quantum erased"??
Unless there are white holes of course!! ;-)
>
> Yes but we are choosing which half to throw ou
Thanks very much Jesse!
You answered the question I *would have* asked had I rememberd my quantum
physics better ;-)
I think your answer is related to a paradox a friend mentioned to me.
The paradox is as follows:
"One does the EPR thing of creating two particles with opposite spin. Send
one f
Hi all,
I'm Ben Goertzel. This is my initial joining post
I'm a math PhD originally, spent 8 years as an academic in math, CS and
psych departments. Have been in the software industry for the last 5 years.
My primary research is in Artificial General Intelligence (see
www.
"Some Incomplete Speculations on the Foundations of Physics"
-- Ben Goertzel
Bruno wrote:
***
Let me insist because some people seem not yet grasping
fully that idea.
In fact that 1/3-distinction makes COMP incompatible with
the thesis that the universe is a machine. If I am a machine then
the universe cannot be a machine. No machine can simulate the
comp first person in
> See my web page for links to papers, and archive addresses with
> more explanations, including the basic results of my thesis.
> (Mainly the Universal Dovetailer Argument UDA and its Arithmetical
> version AUDA).
I read your argument for the UDA, and there's nothing there that
particularly wor
Essentially, you can consider a classic Turing machine to consist of a
data/input/output tape, and a program consisting of
-- elementary tape operations
-- boolean operations
I.e. a Turing machine program is a tape plus a program expressed in a
Boolean algebra that includes some tape-control pri
> You seem to be making points about the limitations
> >of the folk-psychology notion of identity, rather than about the actual
> >nature of the universe...
>
>
> Then you should disagree at some point of the reasoning, for the
> reasoning is intended, at least, to show that it follows from
> the
g Machines?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:5
actual experiences of worlds that are "stuffy
> substancial" ones. It might help if we had a COMP version of "inertia"!
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
.
Anyway, this was part of why I decided to start thinking about AI rather
than fundamental physics ;->
I think Greg Egan's fiction is great, but I also think Diaspora is badly
flawed futorology, because his uploaded minds never get tremendously more
intelligent than humans. I don't th
Tim May wrote:
> It will be interesting and exciting if you are right, but I think the
> kind of AI you describe above and below is further off than 10-30
> years, though perhaps not 50 years.
Well, clearly neither of us has a rigorous way of making an exact
prediction.
But my main point stands
Tim May wrote:
> Except I'll add that I don't agree physics is stumped by most complex
> systems. Physics doesn't try to explain messy and grungy situations,
> nor should it. Turbulence is a special case, and I expect progress will
> be made, especially using math (which is why Navier-Stokes issue
umbers, or linear operators on Hilbert space
Anyway, I'm just giving one mathematician's intuitive reaction to these
branches of math and their possible applicability in the TOE domain. They
*may* be applicable but if so, only for setting the stage... and what the
main actors will be, we don't have any idea...
-- Ben Goertzel
ut I'm of
course open to new ideas and new information...
-- Ben Goertzel
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory
>
&
> When a finite quantum computer can break the Turing barrier, that will
> prove something. But when your first step is to prepare an infinite
> superposition, that has no applicability to the physical universe.
>
> Hal Finney
>
Precisely. Deutsch's arguments make a lot of assumptions about th
airly heterogeneous group, on a
fairly generally-defined topic. I think it serves its purpose well as is.
-- Ben Goertzel
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:48 PM
> To: Hal Finney; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
ollective intuition", and string theory happens to agree with it.
But to me this is a clue to worry that the collective intuition may be way
wrong...
Which is why I think a list like this, with open discussion of speculations
*besides* the conventionally-sanctioned speculations, is such a good thing.
-- Ben Goertzel
Tim, if you're leaving the list it's a shame; as a lurker I've particularly
enjoyed your posts...
-- Ben Goertzel
> I'll miss some tidbits of math I discussed with some of you, but I
> won't miss the rest.
>
> Until we meet in another reality,
>
> --Tim May
>
Hi,
Onar Aam wrote some nice essays on mirrors and awareness, a few years back.
He had a quite elaborate theory.
Unfortunately, his website seems not to be up anymore.
However, if you e-mail him, he will probably send them to you. A year ago
his e-mail was [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I'm not 100% s
The notion of complex-valued or even quaternionic or octonionic
probabilities has been considered; see
http://physics.bu.edu/~youssef/quantum/quantum_refs.html
for some pointers into the literature.
-- Ben Goertzel
> -Original Message-
> From: scerir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric,
This is a really interesting point. Could you elaborate some specific
examples perhaps?
ben g
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Hawthorne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Flaw in denial of "group selection" pri
> ; you might even be able to "read" the brain, scanning for neuronal
> activity and deducing correctly that the subject sees a red
> flash. However,
> it is impossible to know what it feels like to see a red flash unless you
> have the actual experience yourself.
>
> So I maintain that there
tive, the choice lies outside the
domain of science and math; it's a metaphysical or even ethical choice.
-- Ben Goertzel
A powerpoint reviewing these ideas is at John Cramer's website:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/43
I suspect that advocates of the Copenhagen and MW Interpretations will
give different applications of their interpretations to the Afshar
experiment than Cramer does. His applicat
his role in creating loop quantum
gravity, is now taking VSL theories seriously.
-- Ben Goertzel
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: everything; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
ology Rather than "a matter of convention" we thus
seem to have "a matter of human psychological naturalness".
-- Ben Goertzel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
Saibal,
Does
your conclusion about conditional probability also apply to complex-valued
probabilities a la Youssef?
http://physics.bu.edu/~youssef/quantum/quantum_refs.html
http://www.goertzel.org/papers/ChaoQM.htm
-- Ben
Goertzel
-Original Message-From: Bruno Marchal
says "1 Comments.")
I am curious for any reactions to Buckner's comment
by you multiple-universe experts ;-)
thanks
Ben Goertzel
Wei,
Isn't
the moral of this story that, to any finite mind with algorithmic information I,
"uncomputable" is effectively synonymous with "uncomputable within resources
I"?
Thus,
from the perspective of a finite mind M,
A = P(
X is uncomputable)
should
be equal to
B =
P(X is unc
;...
>
> Moshe
-Original Message-From: Ben Goertzel
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:35
PMTo: Wei Dai; everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: RE: is
induction unformalizable?
Wei,
Isn't the moral of this story that, to any finite mind
nce induction in terms of algorithmic information theory (rather
than experience-grounded semantics) is flawed...
ben
-Original Message-From: Wei Dai
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:05
AMTo: Ben Goertzel; everything-list@eskimo.comSubject:
Re: is induction unform
37 matches
Mail list logo
