Since you expend calories on things other than getting more calories then that
implies that every lunch that is sufficient to sustain you must be partially
free. You get more calories from lunch then you expend getting it. Suppose that
there was some supremely efficient characterization of a finite set or space.
Then there still may be more efficient ways of representing subsets or
subspaces of the given set or spaces of the characterization. And there may be
more efficient ways to express cross-generalizations of the set or space. There
may be a better way to help you think outside of the box. Finally, for any
characterization of a measure the definition of the measure may transcend how
the measures are being used. At least parts of the definition stand outside the
measured values. Something similar might be true for other characterizations as
well and I believe in general that must be true. The type of an object in a
definition is a generalization that may be or usually is definable outside of
the definition. So the objects of a definition often stand as
cross-generalizations, that is a typed object refers to a generalization that
the object belongs with. So, for the most part, the objects of a definition or
characterization of some sort of entity are objects of cross-generalizations.
We study mathematics by agreeing to limit our demands of exploring all the
generalizations of the objects of the math. We accept the idea that there can
be premises without complaint. So there are probably a lot of free calories
lying around.
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Ta433301e9ac5fb42-Mb47f94708216513fa184625b
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
