tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post3610451642668499012..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: Paul Krugman's definition of economics assumes the form of the theoryJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-837629480112683672016-01-21T16:49:25.457-08:002016-01-21T16:49:25.457-08:00This is the way the world ends,
This is the way th...This is the way the world ends,<br />This is the way the world ends,<br />Not with a bang but with a reboot.<br /><br />;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-40729248755377986402016-01-21T16:46:34.929-08:002016-01-21T16:46:34.929-08:00Oh, I think that entropy is operating in Adam Smit...Oh, I think that entropy is operating in Adam Smith's example. One is more likely to do what is easy to do than what is difficult to do. We do not have to ask so much about incentives or reasons. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-42375812179786245052016-01-21T14:26:52.664-08:002016-01-21T14:26:52.664-08:00This makes me think of agrarian societies who thou...This makes me think of agrarian societies who thought the world would end with plagues of locusts ...<br /><br />I like vacuum state transitions myself. Which easily could be construed as software failure ... no one could test either hypothesis.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-84812589164299029332016-01-21T13:03:01.841-08:002016-01-21T13:03:01.841-08:00I think it is a good analogy even if it's use ...I think it is a good analogy even if it's use today is not exactly what Adam Smith said it was. The idea just screams entropic force. An atom ends up on the other side of a room not because of any desire to go explore, but simply because of the maximum entropy state of uniform density ... an entropic force of diffusion ushering it to parts unknown ...Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-18120296261778807022016-01-21T11:46:13.117-08:002016-01-21T11:46:13.117-08:00"...how does Nature avoid the halting problem..."...how does Nature avoid the halting problem?"<br /><br />The blue screen of death? My brother (an RF engineer) is convinced the world will end via software failure.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-59765762882125934512016-01-21T11:42:06.125-08:002016-01-21T11:42:06.125-08:00Something I didn't even question about the pie...Something I didn't even question about the piece. Thanks for the review!Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-90825700375468040972016-01-21T11:39:19.544-08:002016-01-21T11:39:19.544-08:00That is to say universality is a conjecture about ...That is to say universality is a conjecture about the universe.<br /><br />Also this brings up something that I talked about on Twitter in reference to something Noah Smith put up about George Ellis ...<br /><br /><a href="https://twitter.com/infotranecon/status/689332372051853316" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/infotranecon/status/689332372051853316</a><br /><br />George Ellis made at least one point I agree with:<br /><br /><i>As I stated above, mathematical equations only represent part of reality, and should not be confused with reality. A specific related issue: there is a group of people out there writing papers based on the idea that physics is a computational process. But a physical law is not an algorithm. So who chooses the computational strategy and the algorithms that realise a specific physical law? (Finite elements perhaps?) What language is it written in? (Does Nature use Java or C++? What machine code is used?) Where is the CPU? What is used for memory, and in what way are read and write commands executed? Additionally if it’s a computation, how does Nature avoid the halting problem? It’s all a very bad analogy that does not work.</i>Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-63820547004691650262016-01-21T11:30:42.267-08:002016-01-21T11:30:42.267-08:00Deutsch expresses universality of computation as i...Deutsch expresses universality of computation as if he proved it is a real property of our universe.<br /><br />As far as we know, we need the real numbers to describe quantum mechanics and there exist real numbers that are not (finitely) computable and you can't just leave out the non-computable ones. Quantum computers do not help, and what are needed are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation" rel="nofollow">hypercomputers</a>.<br /><br />Maybe the real theory of the universe does involve only computable numbers. But we don't know what that is, and universality critically depends on it.<br /><br />I think there is some conflation of a view of the universe as "computing" when physical processes happen (therefore implying a circular pseudo-existence proof ... we assume the universe computes the result of a physical process by the physical process happening, so there exists at least one computer that can do the calculation -- the universe -- but that is an assumption ... classic question begging). Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-18623552074327083962016-01-21T09:44:16.967-08:002016-01-21T09:44:16.967-08:00Interesting -- I will check it out.Interesting -- I will check it out.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-77166251896301118702016-01-21T06:02:10.332-08:002016-01-21T06:02:10.332-08:00Jason, are you familiar with work of Farjoun and M...Jason, are you familiar with work of Farjoun and Machover?<br />Seems there might be some synergies there<br /><br />peAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-19424863105370993002016-01-21T00:02:00.404-08:002016-01-21T00:02:00.404-08:00Also he writes off 'evolutionary algorithms...Also he writes off 'evolutionary algorithms' as the wrong way to achieve AGI, and maybe he's correct. However, if we ever get to a time when our machines design, manufacture and repair themselves, with little or no human supervision, I think it's fair to say that AGI or not, we're toast: we've passed the torch at that point, and evolution takes over.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-2158617277967197752016-01-20T23:34:38.972-08:002016-01-20T23:34:38.972-08:00Good post Jason. You tied a bunch of your favorite...Good post Jason. You tied a bunch of your favorite themes together as usual: I like how you tie in your old posts that I'd forgotten about.<br /><br />O/T: <a href="" rel="nofollow">this article</a> from 2012 by physicist David Deutsch, was linked to by Brad DeLong today, and it ties in tangentially to your post here and the one on pessimism from a few days back (where you mentioned free will). I found it to be on the longish side for what I got out of it. I suspect he's correct that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is possible (he implies inevitable... because of the "universality of computation"). However, he seems to think that everything we've done to get there is barking up the wrong tree (except perhaps the creation of computing hardware). He says nature failed too (except with us), so apes and chimps (which he dismisses as "behaviouristic") aren't even close (however he leaves open the possibility, that a breakthrough could happen). He thinks we need some kind of revolution in philosophy... something Popperian (he's a fan of Popper) but I guess by implication even better (since apparently Popper isn't good enough, or we'd already have this breakthrough). "Creativity" is what our algorithms are missing he says.<br /><br />He makes some good points and I agree with much of it, but I think this paragraph exemplifies the bit that leaves me a bit skeptical of his main point (i.e. the as yet missing "creativity" in anything that's not a human brain, and which we'll figure out through philosophy):<br /><br />"An AGI is qualitatively, not quantitatively, different from all other computer programs. The Skynet misconception [that self awareness is the key to AGI] likewise informs the hope that AGI is merely an emergent property of complexity, or that increased computer power will bring it forth (as if someone had already written an AGI program but it takes a year to utter each sentence). It is behind the notion that the unique abilities of the brain are due to its ‘massive parallelism’ or to its neuronal architecture, two ideas that violate computational universality. Expecting to create an AGI without first understanding in detail how it works is like expecting skyscrapers to learn to fly if we build them tall enough."<br /><br />I don't know... I don't necessarily hope that AGI is an emergent property of complexity, but he didn't convince me to rule that out. (I'm thinking of your PC's "phase transition" here, Lol).Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-41862999363209203912016-01-20T17:27:14.017-08:002016-01-20T17:27:14.017-08:00"The invisible hand seems amenable to treatme..."The invisible hand seems amenable to treatment as an entropic force. Why assume it comes from the detailed parameters in the interaction of agents?"<br /><br />Adam Smith mentions the Invisible Hand three times, I have read. The one time I know about derives not only from the self-interest of capitalists, but also from the difficulty they faced in investing abroad. That is why their self interest benefited their home economy. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com