Friam

New ways of understanding the world

Classic

List

Threaded

57 messages Options

123

Jochen Fromm-5

New ways of understanding the world

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Steve Smith

Re: New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"

On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

The crucial missing piece there is the ability to run experiments. If all that ever happens is that the machine hears “There was massive election fraud!” then it will likely conclude that there was.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.

gepr

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I'm fond of the words "degenerate" and "trivial", which allow nearly useless models to be true without being all that meaningful. Such "limit points" close behavior covers and help make the argument that *breaking* a model is more important than validating a model.

On 11/30/20 12:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"
>
> On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>> Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
>> https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

--
↙↙↙ 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/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

Dennis Overbye recently had a similar NY Times article. It claims that "in 10 years, machine-learning will be as essential to doing physics as knowing math". What do you think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/science/artificial-intelligence-ai-physics-theory.html

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]>

Date: 11/30/20 21:42 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

The success of Google's deep learning program in predicting protein folding is impressive. Maybe that is what he meant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>

Date: 11/30/20 21:55 (GMT+01:00)

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"

On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

thompnickson2

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

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.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

The success of Google's deep learning program in predicting protein folding is impressive. Maybe that is what he meant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>

Date: 11/30/20 21:55 (GMT+01:00)

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"

On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: New ways of understanding the world

Hmm. Every third number in this apparently random sequence is even. Order? What's order? Nonrandomness?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:25 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

The success of Google's deep learning program in predicting protein folding is impressive. Maybe that is what he meant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Date: 11/30/20 21:55 (GMT+01:00)
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"
On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

thompnickson2

Re: New ways of understanding the world

Let’s say I provide you with a string of random numbers copied from the best random number table you care to offer. No, we go to Jon, and holding the table in our laps, we correctly guess every number in the sequence. Were those numbers random? Or to make it even easier, let Jon make a judgement of the randomness of the sequence and then let the sequence recycle and repeat it self exactly.

I know that these are “citizen” questions. I have never quite grasped the concept of randomness (as you see).

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Hmm. Every third number in this apparently random sequence is even. Order? What's order? Nonrandomness?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:25 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

The success of Google's deep learning program in predicting protein folding is impressive. Maybe that is what he meant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Date: 11/30/20 21:55 (GMT+01:00)
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"
On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

All,

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

The success of Google's deep learning program in predicting protein folding is impressive. Maybe that is what he meant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>

Date: 11/30/20 21:55 (GMT+01:00)

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Or a "model of nothing fit to everything we know: useful or merely wrong?"

On 11/30/20 1:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, asks if a computer can find a theory of everything merely by learning from data. Unfortunately most deep learning models are like a black box which delivers good results but is hard to understand. Would a theory of everything be a theory of nothing? It reminds me of Russell Standish's book "theory of nothing".

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

-J.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

gepr

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of *[hidden email]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
> *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.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
> *[hidden email]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> <[hidden email]>
> *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.

gepr

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>> *[hidden email]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>> <[hidden email]>
>> *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/
>

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>> *[hidden email]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>> <[hidden email]>
>> *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/
>

gepr

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>>> *[hidden email]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> *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.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM
To: [hidden email]
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:

gepr

Re: New ways of understanding the world

The AI has to have something to *do*. That mechanism amounts to a theory. If the AI looks for patterns in digits, then "look for patterns in the digits" is a type of theory. If the AI tries to copy a set of encrypted digits, then "decrypt and copy the digits" is the theory.

I would further argue that the AI cannot exist, the recipe/algorithm can't exist, without some schematic definition of the things it'll operate on and for tests of a successful operation. So, it would make sense to claim that all 3 are required for there to be a theory. I'm not making that strong of a claim. I'm only trying to back up Nick on his claim that there must be some sort of prior theory for any of it to "work" ... however "work" might be understood.

On 11/30/20 4:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>>>> *[hidden email]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> *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/
>

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: New ways of understanding the world

How about Try random stuff and possibly reproduce? It is starting to sound like you are a creationist.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

The AI has to have something to *do*. That mechanism amounts to a theory. If the AI looks for patterns in digits, then "look for patterns in the digits" is a type of theory. If the AI tries to copy a set of encrypted digits, then "decrypt and copy the digits" is the theory.

I would further argue that the AI cannot exist, the recipe/algorithm can't exist, without some schematic definition of the things it'll operate on and for tests of a successful operation. So, it would make sense to claim that all 3 are required for there to be a theory. I'm not making that strong of a claim. I'm only trying to back up Nick on his claim that there must be some sort of prior theory for any of it to "work" ... however "work" might be understood.

On 11/30/20 4:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>>>> *[hidden email]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> *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/
>

thompnickson2

Re: New ways of understanding the world

Hmm! I don't think I (or glen) have to be a creationist. Only a "start-in-the-middle-ist". I am not interested in the "first structure". Let's figure out hoW all the others Work and then We'll Worry about the first one. (sorry, my doubleU key is effed up and Lenovo is back ordered on keyboards. Does anybody kno a Lenovo executive I could have slaughtered. ) The interest in the first of anything is just creationism set loose from the constraints of religion.
n
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

How about Try random stuff and possibly reproduce? It is starting to sound like you are a creationist.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

The AI has to have something to *do*. That mechanism amounts to a theory. If the AI looks for patterns in digits, then "look for patterns in the digits" is a type of theory. If the AI tries to copy a set of encrypted digits, then "decrypt and copy the digits" is the theory.

I would further argue that the AI cannot exist, the recipe/algorithm can't exist, without some schematic definition of the things it'll operate on and for tests of a successful operation. So, it would make sense to claim that all 3 are required for there to be a theory. I'm not making that strong of a claim. I'm only trying to back up Nick on his claim that there must be some sort of prior theory for any of it to "work" ... however "work" might be understood.

On 11/30/20 4:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
>>>> *[hidden email]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
>>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> *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/
>

--
↙↙↙ 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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Russell Standish-2

Re: New ways of understanding the world

Was your laptop recycled from the White House perchance?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121980&page=1

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:47:22PM -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hmm! I don't think I (or glen) have to be a creationist. Only a "start-in-the-middle-ist". I am not interested in the "first structure". Let's figure out hoW all the others Work and then We'll Worry about the first one. (sorry, my doubleU key is effed up and Lenovo is back ordered on keyboards. Does anybody kno a Lenovo executive I could have slaughtered. ) The interest in the first of anything is just creationism set loose from the constraints of religion.
> n
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:36 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world
>
> How about Try random stuff and possibly reproduce? It is starting to sound like you are a creationist.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:45 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world
>
> The AI has to have something to *do*. That mechanism amounts to a theory. If the AI looks for patterns in digits, then "look for patterns in the digits" is a type of theory. If the AI tries to copy a set of encrypted digits, then "decrypt and copy the digits" is the theory.
>
> I would further argue that the AI cannot exist, the recipe/algorithm can't exist, without some schematic definition of the things it'll operate on and for tests of a successful operation. So, it would make sense to claim that all 3 are required for there to be a theory. I'm not making that strong of a claim. I'm only trying to back up Nick on his claim that there must be some sort of prior theory for any of it to "work" ... however "work" might be understood.
>
> On 11/30/20 4:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> 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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> >>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> 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 <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
> >>>> *[hidden email]
> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM
> >>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> >>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>> *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/
> >
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ 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/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email]
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

123