James, My working definition of "truth" is a pattern that predicts. And I'm tending away from compression for that.
Related to your sense of "meaning" in (Algorithmic Information) randomness. But perhaps not quite the same thing. I want to emphasise a sense in which "meaning" is an expansion of the world, not a compression. By expansion I mean more than one, contradictory, predictive pattern from a single set of data. Note I'm saying a predictive pattern, not a predictable pattern. (Perhaps as a random distribution of billiard balls might predict the evolution of the table, without being predictable itself?) There's randomness at the heart of that. Contradictory patterns require randomness. A single, predictable, pattern, could not have contradictory predictive patterns either? But I see the meaning coming from the prediction, not any random pattern that may be making the prediction. Making meaning about prediction, and not any specific pattern itself, opens the door to patterns which are meaningful even though new. Which can be a sense for creativity. Anyway, the "creative" aspect of it would explain why LLMs get so big, and don't show any interpretable structure. With a nod to the topic of this thread, it would also explain why symbolic systems would never be adequate. It would undermine the idea of stable symbols, anyway. So, not consensus through a single, stable, Algorithmic Information most compressed pattern, as I understand you are suggesting (the most compressed pattern not knowable anyway?) Though dependent on randomness, and consistent with your statement that "truth" should be "relative to a given set of observations". On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 11:57 PM James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rob, the problem I have with things like "type theory" and "category theory" > is that they almost always elide their foundation in HOL (high order logic) > which means they don't really admit that they are syntactic sugars for > second-order predicate calculus. The reason I describe this as "risible" is > the same reason I rather insist on the Algorithmic Information Criterion for > model selection in the natural sciences: > > Reduce the argument surface that has us all going into hysterics over "truth" > aka "the science" aka what IS the case as opposed to what OUGHT to be the > case. > > Note I said "reduce" rather than "eliminate" the argument surface. All I'm > trying to do is get people to recognize that relative to a given set of > observations the Algorithmic Information Criterion is the best operational > definition of the truth. > > It's really hard for people to take even this baby step toward standing down > from killing each other in a rhyme with The Thirty Years War, given that > social policy is so centralized that everyone must become a de facto > theocratic supremacist as a matter of self defence. It's really obvious that > the trend is toward capturing us in a control system, e.g. a Valley-Girl > flirtation friendly interface to Silicon Chutulu that can only be fought at > the physical level such as sniper bullets through the cooling systems of data > centers. This would probably take down civilization itself given the > over-emphasis on efficiency vs resilience in civilization's dependence on > information systems infrastructure. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T682a307a763c1ced-M8a84fef3037323602ea7dcca Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
