On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:07 AM John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 02, 2019, at 1:05 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > Harvard University's Jonathan Haidt is so terrified of the truth coming > out that he's actually come out against Occam's Razor > <https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25346>. > > > There are sityations where the simplest explanation is to chuck Occam's > Razor :) > ANY situation can be one where the most viable _decision_ is to stop the search for the simplest explanation and _act_ on the simplest explanation you have found _thus far_. This is a consequence of the incomputability of Solomonoff Induction in the face of limited resources. There is an over reliance. "Mistakes were made. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made>" > Though implementors do need to go from complex to simple. > > But there are issues with rationality. > There is an explore/exploit tradeoff. See the prior "issue" with "computability" and then compound that with the "irrationality" of the valuation function applied during sequential decision theory. How do you justify that, outside of the "exploration" provided by evolution? > There are issues with scientific objectivism. > There are issues with communication between members of a polity. See prior issues with "computability" and "value function". > Aren't Occam and Gödel at odds with each other in some ways? > Not in the way that theologians posing as "social scientists" would have us believe. For example, choosing a universal Turing machine as the basis for Solomonoff Induction can be, and has been blown into an argument to abandon induction entirely by simply defining one's UTM as that which outputs all observations up to the present. The benefit of such theology, posing as "social science" is the theologian, serving his political masters, can "scientifically justify" anything they want to do to you. Hell, just pay Bill Nye the Science Guy to hold a march with a bunch of kids screaming "HOW DARE YOU!!!" as they ransak the village hunting down those who deny "SCIENCE", including their own parents who do not "consent" to whatever the powers that be want to do to them. Resist "the children"? HOW DARE YOU bully the innocents! You might not even have to pay Bill very much if you give him access to the kids in a _very_ private setting. Especially in virtual worlds hosted by computers where there is a > disconnect between thermodynamic and information theoretic. > Again, you're simply invoking resource limitations/computability/value functions. > And NKS (Wolfram) does squeeze in there somewhat between Occam and Gödel…. > Didn’t gain much traction yet AFAIK. > Wolfram! Well! Perhaps you should take this up with Hector Zenil <https://www.hectorzenil.net/main.html>: I am also the Managing Editor of Complex Systems, the first journal in the field founded by Stephen Wolfram in 1987. I am member of the Editorial Board of publications and book series such as the Springer series on Emergence, Complexity and Computation, the journals Philosophies and Frontiers in Robotics and AI for its Computational Intelligence section, among other journals. I also serve as consultant/advisor for labs and organisations such as Wolfram Research, the Living Systems Lab, Intuition Machine, Veda Data, and the Lifetime Foundation. I seem to recall an ancient paper of his called "Causal deconvolution by algorithmic generative models <https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-018-0005-0>" or some such that Wolfram might take seriously. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-Mfcffbeb8eb97e391130495db Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
