What would Godel say about a NOT gate with its input connected to its output?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:28 PM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > Gödel's incompleteness theorum still wins this argument. However, what > really happens in unseen space remains fraught with possibility. The > question remains: how exactly is this relevant to AGI? > > In transition, energy is always "lost" to externalities. Excellent design > would limit such losses to not impact negatively on internal functionality. > E.g., Losses can be recycled for reuse, and so on. It all depends on the > relevance of the dynamical boundary that was either set, or which emerged. > > Even so, the "lossy" argument should be finite. As a system, its > boundaries of argument should also be maintained. This remains true for all > systems, even systems of systems. As such, it's more a function of a design > decision, than an incomplete argument. > On 12 Nov 2021 20:41, "James Bowery" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM John Rose <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >>> While these examples may sound edgy, often these incompleteness's are >>> where there is much to be learned. Exploring may help some understandings >>> especially, as James pointed out, that “AIXI = AIT⊗SDT = Algorithmic >>> Information Theory ⊗ Sequential Decision Theory". >>> >> >> AIXI *reduced* the parameter count of an AGI with unlimited computation >> but limited information. Before you jump all over the fact that it is >> necessary to limit the computation, we still need to talk about the >> remaining open parameters in AIXI. In AIT the open parameter is: "Which >> Turing Machine?" In SDT the open parameter is "Which Utility Function?" >> >> To answer "Which Turing Machine?" I've intuited an approach that Matt >> reduced to a pretty restrictive descriptive space of NOR DCGs. This >> reduces what might be thought of as the descriptive space of Turing >> Machines to what Matt formalized. It doesn't get rid of _all_ of the >> unknowns in that space, but it is far more rigorous than the descriptive >> space of all UTMs. There is a _lot_ of work to be done with this approach >> and advances will, IMNSHO, have immediate and profound application in logic >> design. >> >> To answer "Which Utility Function?" we must become a lot more >> philosophically serious than has heretofore been the case in all the >> brouhaha about "friendly AI". >> >> Hutter's paper "A Complete Theory of Everything (will be subjective) >> <https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5434>" is his (still incomplete) approach to >> addressing what you refer to as "these incompleteness's". >> >> Now, having said all that: Yes, the measurement level of abstraction does >> get into the economics of computation resources and, yes, it would be nice >> to find approaches that obviate all of the above "incompletenesses", but >> you must do better than to redefine the words "lossy" and "lossless" >> compression as that merely hobbles an existing approach to these >> incompletenesses while at the same time threatening to hobble their >> practical applications by confusing the meanings of words. >> > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-M51e0a35dfb73ba6e114017c4> > > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-M7d84e953de50694ccc67f44a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
