**From:** Daniel Radetsky (*daniel@radray.us*)

**Date:** Tue Aug 02 2005 - 03:29:54 MDT

**Next message:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Next in thread:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 02:44:43 -0400

"Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

*> For instance, quantum physics can be derived from the assumption that
*

*> uncertainty should be quantified using complex-valued probabilities (cf Saul
*

*> Yousseff's work). Mathematically it seems consistent that there are more
*

*> general physics theories that use quaternionic and octonionic
*

*> probabilities>
*

Okay, so you have probabilities coming from "larger" fields than the reals. Do

you think you have evidence that those would provide box-exploits, or are you

just saying that you now have a larger universe of physical theories in which

box-exploits might be? The first disjunct is just another possibility, which

means it isn't an argument for magic. The second disjunct requires that you

answer my earlier objections. Pick a disjunct and start swinging.

*> So you're right. The argument from the known (empirical and conceptual)
*

*> incompleteness of physics is only PART of my reason for believing a
*

*> superhuman AI could find a box-exploit.
*

But my point is that the incompleteness of physics provides next to no support

for the existence of exploits.

*> The other part is the part you don't agree with, which is a general argument
*

*> that if X is a lot smarter than Y, then X can probably find a way out of any
*

*> box that Y creates.
*

That's only true if there really *is* a way out, given the circumstances X

finds himself in. It may simply be impossible for X to get out. To believe that

X can probably find a way out, you must first believe that X has a reasonable

way out. What makes you believe he has a way?

*> It occurs to me now that it might be possible to prove a mathematical
*

*> theorem to this effect. One could look at an average over all possible
*

*> physical universes (assuming some probability distribution on them), and
*

*> over all pairs of organisms X and Y within them, then try to prove that "If
*

*> X is much smarter than Y, then X can escape from most boxes Y could create."
*

This sounds mighty specious to me, but I can't really say for sure until I know

exactly what it would mean. What is the probability distribution a distribution

of? Which of the universes is most likely? If so, it would have to work for

*any* probability distribution, since you don't know what the real one is,

including the distribution in which there is a probability of 1 that we end up

in a universe where most boxes are unbreakable (or it is ridiculously easy to

make an unbreakable box).

*> Now, turning the previous paragraph into a real theorem would involve
*

*> formalizing "intelligence" and "organism" and "box" in useful ways (which we
*

*> have currently only made limited progress towards), and then proving a
*

*> possibly very hard theorem. But I submit that if we did prove something
*

*> like this, it would be decent evidence for the "other part" of my reason for
*

*> believing a superhuman Ai could find a box-exploit.
*

You'd also need a good working definition of "possible," and other nasty

things like that. I doubt it would work. In any case, the evidence would only

be as strong as your definitions of all of the terms are uncontroversial. Good

luck.

Daniel

**Next message:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Next in thread:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Randall Randall: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT
*