The one is the AI or the rat and its related gene sequence? Or you need all three? I claim that the last two are not a theory, and that an AI could do that data mining.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world Well, that *system*, {one, person, genetic sequence} contains an endogenous theory (or a set of possible theories). If you slice out the {one} doing the operating, then you lose the theory. On 11/30/20 4:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > So if one is given a person (or a rat) and a genetic sequence that animal > amounts to an endogenous theory? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > > Well, sure. But just because the theory is endogenous, doesn't imply that > theory does not *exist*, nor that it's not *prior* to the launch. So, even in > that case, Nick's correct that the theory (or a spanning kernel of it) exists > before-hand. > > On 11/30/20 4:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Once one figures out how the monitor reacts then one can see how certain >> registers change as a result of changes in instruction sequences. The >> relationship of a perturbation to an outcome is simple, learnable and >> relatively unambiguous for a typical microprocessor. Assembly of >> subroutines follow the same principles. (One can observe a stack with >> enough experimentation.) The language is learned (not given) and the >> axioms implied by the structure of the machine. The goal of copying is sort >> of beside the point. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world >> >> But if we use the word "theory" in its minimal sense of "a language and a >> set of axioms", then your "to be copied so that it does the same thing" *is* >> a theory, albeit a different theory (or containing theory) for one that >> would treat the [un]copyable application over and above the act of copying. >> What would be interesting would be the *number* and diversity of theories >> validatable/executable against any given set of tokens. >> >> On 11/30/20 3:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> I spent a fair amount of my youth disassembling boot procedures of various >>> copy protection schemes. There one is given a list of numbers that >>> bootstrap an operating system and an application. A small portion of that >>> list of numbers is relevant to preventing that list of numbers from being >>> copied from one media to another. It wasn’t really necessary to have a >>> theory of the application, generally, to understand how to change the >>> numbers to make that list copyable. If one had no theory of a computer >>> instruction set or of an operating system, but was just given a disk and >>> the goal of copying it to get the computer to do the same thing when the >>> copied disk was put in to the disk drive instead of the original disk, it >>> is possible to learn everything that is needed to learn which numbers to >>> change. No oscilloscope needed, no theory of solid state physics, etc. >>> Ok, maybe one reference manual. Biology is the same, but without a >>> concise reference manual. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of >>> *[email protected] >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM >>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> I feel like this relates to a discussion held during Nerd Hour at the end >>> of last Friday’s vfriam. I was arguing that given, say, a string of >>> numbers, and no information external to that string, that no AI could >>> detect “order” unless it already possessed a theory of what order is. I >>> found the discussion distressing because I thought the point was trivial >>> but all the smart people in the conversation were arguing against me. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
