Page: 1 2 3 4
codesimian
Registered user
Registered: 08-2021
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
The only correct reason to believe something is, among the infinity number of possible theories which explain all observations exactly (including every observation it predicts wrong as a "special case" that makes it predict that one thing right), smaller kolmogorovComplexity(theory) is more likely (unsure of the exact nonlinear curve)
The only correct reason to believe something is it matches all observations and has the lowest known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity (smallest possible turing-complete compression). Observations not matching the theory add approx their literal size to kolmogorov complexity (uncompressed) which makes it much bigger so theories that find deeper patterns have lower kolmogorov complexity. I know how to compute any finite-time-cycles kolmogorov-complexity, as abstract math, but in practice it can only be estimated since the exact solution gets exponentially expensive really fast. It explains neuralnet weights changing to find patterns since theres not enough weights to hold all the data literally. It explains why the equations of physics are small and datasets they predict are huge, and the parts of the dataset they dont predict are the lower digits of the numbers, and the more accurate the theory is the less "lower digits" it gets wrong, and only the digits it predicts wrong add to kolmogorov complexity. Those it predicts right are stored in the text of the equations and a few starting positions and velocities etc. The rest can be derived. So the description of the universe fits in a smaller amount of info. Smaller theories that explain all the observations, are more likely to be true. If some religious belief is true, or some scientific claim is true, then in both cases any theory which is able to completely describe both at once would be a better theory if it is smaller than the sum of separate scientific theory and religious statements while still being able to derive whichever same statements are true. Statements that just add complexity without explaining other things a simpler way, that cost more complexity than profits in reduced complexity, are more often false than true.
Do not ask me to believe things for any other reason, especially politically motivated or faith based. I dont care what "the experts" or "the authorities" or "the news" or anyone says if it doesnt match this way of scoring all possible statements.
|
|
9/18/2021, 10:22 am
|
Link to this post
PM codesimian
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
This appears to be a technically precise expression of Occam's razor.
It sounds OK in principle. However, in practice, people often attempt to use simple rules to explain things that the rules simply do not explain.
For example, there is no simple rule that has successfully explained consciousness. Yet, many people attempt to explain consciousness as an extension of ordinary physics.
Often, a rule that seems to be simple upon quick inspection is actually quite complex when all the implicit assumptions are taken into account. A rule that is represented simply on a digital computer does not take into account that in order to run, it must be supported by a digital computer, which is invariably complex.
I submit that there are no simple rules. It is an attractive idea with no real world correlate.
|
|
9/19/2021, 1:36 am
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
codesimian
Registered user
Registered: 08-2021
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
About "consciousness" (which BTW I have no idea what that means since I am a P-Zombie and believe everyone else is too), what is something observed that differs from any theory predicting it? Lets start really simple: What is any observation of consciousness at all that was observed by at least 2 different people andOr machines at the same time, and what was the difference they observed in it, such as 2 basketball players going for the same ball can both see the ball but might think its in a slightly different 3d position. If you have no gradient to measure between prediction and observation, you have no theory at all, and it may be just a made up word that doesnt refer to anything.
> A rule that is represented simply on a digital computer does not take into account that in order to run, it must be supported by a digital computer, which is invariably complex.
A computer doesnt have to be complex. This is a universal function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_and_Jot though is not a very efficient way. I'm using a slightly more complex variant of it to design a p2p network where many people can play and do AI research together by putting lambdas together like toys.
|
|
9/19/2021, 11:16 am
|
Link to this post
PM codesimian
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
I agree that there is no objective evidence of consciousness. Many people report experiencing it and their observations are remarkably consistent.
To my knowledge, a preponderance of scientists do not argue for its nonexistence. Nevertheless, there can be no simple explanation for something that informed people usually report but for which there is no objective evidence.
The programs you have linked to still have to be run on a computer, which is still complex, with some complexities that we do not fully understand. For example, they use transistors, which depend on quantum mechanics, and we do not fully understand quantum mechanics. However, even the programs themselves exist only in our minds and we do not understand the mind. The symbols that represent those programs are just meaningless marks on paper without a mind to comprehend them. Again, what appears to be simple, is actually complex in the sense that it depends on a lot of implicit assumptions.
|
|
9/19/2021, 3:45 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
codesimian
Registered user
Registered: 08-2021
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
Transistor has 3 electrodes that electrons moving through 2 of are blocked more or less by electrons pushing in through the third, similar to bending a hose to reduce the water flow, if another hose sprayed against a lever that squeezed the first hose.
> I agree that there is no objective evidence of consciousness.
No thats not agreeing with me. To have evidence or a lack of evidence for consciousness, consciousness would have to be a theory that makes at least 1 claim. It makes no claims at all and is meaningless until it does.
Last edited by codesimian, 9/19/2021, 5:50 pm
|
|
9/19/2021, 5:48 pm
|
Link to this post
PM codesimian
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
quote:
Transistor has 3 electrodes that electrons moving through 2 of are blocked more or less by electrons pushing in through the third, similar to bending a hose to reduce the water flow, if another hose sprayed against a lever that squeezed the first hose.
A hose? Are you an expert in hydraulics? Are hoses simple?
That is really beside the point. You cannot establish the "simplicity" of any algorithm. They will always involve implicit assumptions...things that are taken for granted by people who think about them a lot. If they were genuinely simple, a simpleton could understand them. Yet, you do not believe I understand them. I am not a genius, but I am not a simpleton.
Are you saying that consciousness does not exist? Is there a simple explanation for why so many educated people believe it does? Are John Searle and David Chalmers simpletons?
|
|
9/19/2021, 6:08 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
codesimian
Registered user
Registered: 08-2021
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
Define consciousness by describing what would be different if it exists vs not.
|
|
9/19/2021, 6:17 pm
|
Link to this post
PM codesimian
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
quote:
codesimian wrote:
Define consciousness by describing what would be different if it exists vs not.
Consciousness: an experience reported by many people that they describe as being unified and qualitative.
Note that I define it as a reported experience. The reports are measurable. The experience is not.
Are you saying that consciousness is not scientific? I am way ahead of you:
The Embarrassment of Artificial Minds
Do you have a simple explanation for why so many intelligent educated people report the experience of consciousness?
|
|
9/19/2021, 7:53 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
codesimian
Registered user
Registered: 08-2021
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
from that link
quote:
Above, when I explained Transhumanists’ motivation for believing computer programs can be conscious, I probably gave Transhumanists too much credit. The fact is that it will almost certainly be possible in the near future to translate the functionality of most of the human brain to a computer substrate. However, Transhumanists will only be satisfied with this translation if they can be assured that their subjective human experience of consciousness will also be translated. In other words, they need to believe that what they feel that they are will become what the resulting program actually is. Moreover, they need to believe that who they feel that they are will become who the program actually is. They need to believe that the “there” that is mysteriously “here” will become the “here” that is ultimately “there”. The philosophical contortions that Transhumanists go through to convince themselves that an indefinable subjective characteristic of object A will somehow become an actual characteristic of object B are remarkable.
I am me instead of you because all possible things happen at once in parallel, and at each moment you will nearly always find yourself anywhere else in the universe than you "just were a moment ago", but since you have not brought your brain, you are not aware of it, and when you eventually are "back at the next moment" where you expected to be, your brain is there remembering it as if it continuously happened, with no memory of the places the brain was not. I am not you because not much info flows between us compared to the amount of info that flows inside my brain to other parts of my brain.
quote:
The reports are measurable.
I believe they report that. Both rational and irrational thoughts are, at a lower level, completely rational, like the gears of a mechanical clock may tick with precision but be set to the wrong time.
quote:
Do you have a simple explanation for why so many intelligent educated people report the experience of consciousness?
cuz they dont know how minds work, such as they dont know the math of whatever kind of neuralnet their mind is most similar to, and they make up a word for it anyways "consciousness", but then the parts of it that become understood are said to be just physics, so "consciousness" is an ever shrinking definition that refers to a shrinking area of ignorance.
Last edited by codesimian, 9/19/2021, 8:47 pm
|
|
9/19/2021, 8:20 pm
|
Link to this post
PM codesimian
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The only correct reason to believe something is smallest kolmogorov complexity of universe
quote:
so "consciousness" is an ever shrinking definition that refers to a shrinking area of ignorance.
By that argument, once consciousness has been fully explained, it will go away. I am skeptical.
You are only convincing me that you are, in fact, some kind of nonconscious zombie (not a p-zombie, though).
|
|
9/19/2021, 9:00 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4
You are not logged in ( login)
|
