4 ms·

Put another way: the claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics. Do you want to defend th

Put another way: the claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics. Do you want to defend that?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics We don’t have a complete theory of physics. We don’t have any viable models of human thought. This is a non sequitur.
- canjobear 5y ago
  We do have a theory of physics which is likely to be able to cover all the phenomena of biology[1], but that is beside the point. If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. You’ve reduced the question of whether our universe is deterministic, something the greatest minds in physics have debated for a century and continue to debate, to a sound bite. That’s disingenuous. There may be phenomena we cannot accurately model and predict for fundamental reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural. We are so far from scientifically understanding consciousness that we don’t even have an agreed-upon empirical definition for it, let alone a way to measure it. That gap in understanding undermines any claim that it can be modelled this way or that.
    - canjobear 5y ago
      Determinism is irrelevant. You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. Consciousness is more interesting, and it boils down to the claim that there is something metaphysically and unverifiably (from the outside) special about humans. That sounds supernatural to me.
      - blix 5y ago
        It sounds to me that you are arguing that consciousness fundementally doesn't exist; what we think of consciousness is an emergent property of fundementally determinable physical rules. If this is the case why are you arguing on HN? Is it possible for you to leave the discussion? Is talking to you the same as dropping a ball and watching gravity pull it downwards? I'm a little skeptical of your stochastic model of humanity as well. Statistical mechanics works because oxygen molecules don't go off and start religions and convince other oxygen molecules to behave radically differently for thousands of years (or at least we haven't ever seen it). In fact our stoachstic physical models, classical, semi-classical and quantum, kinda specifically preclude this. How would you design an equation to capture this real phenomenon in humans?
      - Jensson 5y ago
        > You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. No you cannot, quantum effects are way more complex than just random chance effects. The quantum waves are particles in their own rights that flows and interacts with each other and itself, if you treat it as just a stochastic variable you don't get quantum effects.
        canjobear 5y ago
        You just use the Born rule to get your probabilities from the wave function…
  - EarthLaunch 5y ago
    This really makes me think. Unknowable is often mistaken as supernatural. Could human behavior possibly be physically unknowable? There are potential unknowables: Non-observable universe, destructed past information, progressively fundamental particles. Even with indestructible information, combined with locality at the big-bang, combined with a perfect fundamental physics, is there enough time/energy to compute that? Perhaps this is grasping at straws.
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people. With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this? A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.
- canjobear 5y ago
  The claim was that it's obvious that an AI can't patent something because the AI is an "equation." I'm claiming that if you want to establish a meaningful difference between humans an AIs, which would be useful legally, it can't be that one is an "equation" and the other is not, because "an equation" could equally well describe human behavior. You'd have to search for the distinction elsewhere.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    It is legally useful since it fits with our current understanding. When this changes, the laws will change. Your scenario is completely hypothetical at this point and also kinda extrapolated from things we know now.
Jensson 5y ago
Modelling quantum physics interactions is NP-hard, you can't do that using regular computers even if you make them as big as the universe. It is possible you can make a good simulation of human thought without all of that, but we can't be certain.
tremon 5y ago
No, what people are saying is that humans cannot be reduced to your abstract model. Your model is a simplification, and to insist that reality matches the model is a very myopic worldview.

Put another way: the claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics. Do you want to defend that?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics We don’t have a complete theory of physics. We don’t have any viable models of human thought. This is a non sequitur.

canjobear 5y ago
We do have a theory of physics which is likely to be able to cover all the phenomena of biology[1], but that is beside the point. If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. You’ve reduced the question of whether our universe is deterministic, something the greatest minds in physics have debated for a century and continue to debate, to a sound bite. That’s disingenuous. There may be phenomena we cannot accurately model and predict for fundamental reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural. We are so far from scientifically understanding consciousness that we don’t even have an agreed-upon empirical definition for it, let alone a way to measure it. That gap in understanding undermines any claim that it can be modelled this way or that.
  - canjobear 5y ago
    Determinism is irrelevant. You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. Consciousness is more interesting, and it boils down to the claim that there is something metaphysically and unverifiably (from the outside) special about humans. That sounds supernatural to me.
    - blix 5y ago
      It sounds to me that you are arguing that consciousness fundementally doesn't exist; what we think of consciousness is an emergent property of fundementally determinable physical rules. If this is the case why are you arguing on HN? Is it possible for you to leave the discussion? Is talking to you the same as dropping a ball and watching gravity pull it downwards? I'm a little skeptical of your stochastic model of humanity as well. Statistical mechanics works because oxygen molecules don't go off and start religions and convince other oxygen molecules to behave radically differently for thousands of years (or at least we haven't ever seen it). In fact our stoachstic physical models, classical, semi-classical and quantum, kinda specifically preclude this. How would you design an equation to capture this real phenomenon in humans?
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. No you cannot, quantum effects are way more complex than just random chance effects. The quantum waves are particles in their own rights that flows and interacts with each other and itself, if you treat it as just a stochastic variable you don't get quantum effects.
      - canjobear 5y ago
        You just use the Born rule to get your probabilities from the wave function…
- EarthLaunch 5y ago
  This really makes me think. Unknowable is often mistaken as supernatural. Could human behavior possibly be physically unknowable? There are potential unknowables: Non-observable universe, destructed past information, progressively fundamental particles. Even with indestructible information, combined with locality at the big-bang, combined with a perfect fundamental physics, is there enough time/energy to compute that? Perhaps this is grasping at straws.

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago

I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people. With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this? A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.

canjobear 5y ago
The claim was that it's obvious that an AI can't patent something because the AI is an "equation." I'm claiming that if you want to establish a meaningful difference between humans an AIs, which would be useful legally, it can't be that one is an "equation" and the other is not, because "an equation" could equally well describe human behavior. You'd have to search for the distinction elsewhere.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  It is legally useful since it fits with our current understanding. When this changes, the laws will change. Your scenario is completely hypothetical at this point and also kinda extrapolated from things we know now.

Jensson 5y ago

Modelling quantum physics interactions is NP-hard, you can't do that using regular computers even if you make them as big as the universe. It is possible you can make a good simulation of human thought without all of that, but we can't be certain.

tremon 5y ago

No, what people are saying is that humans cannot be reduced to your abstract model. Your model is a simplification, and to insist that reality matches the model is a very myopic worldview.