5 ms·

Then give some concrete numbers for the states of the atoms. My argument is not abstract, it is very concrete. Give me a neural network and I can generate the g

Then give some concrete numbers for the states of the atoms. My argument is not abstract, it is very concrete. Give me a neural network and I can generate the graph and prove the equivalence between the network and its graph representation as a table of tuples.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
You said "even in theory" which is obviously wrong, since the (local) universe is finite and deterministic, hence it is itself a giant lookup table.
- aruss 3y ago
  Where are you going to get all that time and space to build a lookup table? Are you sure you're able to measure all state at enough precision to make an accurate table?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Doesn't matter given the original statement spawning this subthread was: > People can not be reduced to lookup tables even in theory
    - mistermann 3y ago
      What theories are you using to solve for: - consciousness? - the unknown? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency - the misunderstood? https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? Culture could do it though I think.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Can you rephrase that? It currently reads like shifting goalposts, and I'd like to guess that was not your intention…
        mistermann 3y ago
        Any theory that asserts exhaustive coverage of people would need to take all relevant aspects of reality into consideration, so I suggested some of the trickiest things that are relevant. Unfortunately for me, they are so tricky that they "don't count" (try, genuinely, to model the reality bending capability of people in a theory, I would love to see that!).
        ben_w 3y ago
        > model the reality bending capability of people Much to the disappointment of my teenage self who would really have liked the shape-shifting spell to work, I don't see any evidence we can bend reality. -- > consciousness? I think this is a red herring. We can talk about P-Zombies, but we lack the means to determine if some random human (let alone AI) is one. > the unknown? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency > the misunderstood? What about them? I still don't know why these are an interesting problem in this scenario. > https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ Isn't one of the big criticisms of AI at the moment the fact that they do this slight more than humans, and we can point and laugh at them? (While conveniently forgetting that half of us were Yani and the other half Laurel, that half of us were blue and black while the other half were white and gold, etc.) > The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? A reference to the ever diminishing role for God in the late 19th century onwards, but I'm not sure how you're using it here? > Culture could do it though I think. Banks? Sure, but fictional.
        mistermann 3y ago
        All this considered, and during this process, did you happen to form any conclusions (or ~"update weights"), consciously or unconsciously (in reality)? I think it's interesting how the human mind can "know" whether things that are unknown can be modeled, or not, and I happen to believe that this phenomenon occurs within reality (where I believe the comments within this thread are), bending that portion of it. I also believe that this phenomenon is fundamental. But then, there "is" "no evidence" for any of this...and we all know what that means!
    - aruss 3y ago
      Then I would say your theoretical model is wrong or incomplete or makes for a circular argument (it's an assumption and not proven that finite matter evolving through time reduces to a lookup table).
- Karellen 3y ago
  > the (local) universe is finite and deterministic, Radioactive decay and spontaneous pair production say otherwise on the deterministic front.
- logifail 3y ago
  > the (local) universe is finite and deterministic "It is not possible for the Universe being deterministic at any level. Only theories can be deterministic, practical reality is never"[0] Q: Can you calculate your local universe's past states given its present state? [0] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99163/is-it-possible-for-the-universe-to-be-deterministic-at-one-level-but-not-at-a-h https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99163/is-it-p...
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Simply not true. Of course it is comforting for computer people to believe the world they live in is a giant computer, but that is not our real reality.
ben_w 3y ago
"""the number of bits required to perfectly recreate the natural matter of the average-sized U.S. adult male human brain down to the quantum level on a computer is about 2.6×10^42 bits of information (see Bekenstein bound for the basis for this calculation).""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data) (That said, I think quantum physics makes it "all a Markov chain" rather than "all a lookup table").

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

You said "even in theory" which is obviously wrong, since the (local) universe is finite and deterministic, hence it is itself a giant lookup table.

aruss 3y ago
Where are you going to get all that time and space to build a lookup table? Are you sure you're able to measure all state at enough precision to make an accurate table?
- ben_w 3y ago
  Doesn't matter given the original statement spawning this subthread was: > People can not be reduced to lookup tables even in theory
  - mistermann 3y ago
    What theories are you using to solve for: - consciousness? - the unknown? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency - the misunderstood? https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? Culture could do it though I think.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Can you rephrase that? It currently reads like shifting goalposts, and I'd like to guess that was not your intention…
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Any theory that asserts exhaustive coverage of people would need to take all relevant aspects of reality into consideration, so I suggested some of the trickiest things that are relevant. Unfortunately for me, they are so tricky that they "don't count" (try, genuinely, to model the reality bending capability of people in a theory, I would love to see that!).
        ben_w 3y ago
        > model the reality bending capability of people Much to the disappointment of my teenage self who would really have liked the shape-shifting spell to work, I don't see any evidence we can bend reality. -- > consciousness? I think this is a red herring. We can talk about P-Zombies, but we lack the means to determine if some random human (let alone AI) is one. > the unknown? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency > the misunderstood? What about them? I still don't know why these are an interesting problem in this scenario. > https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ Isn't one of the big criticisms of AI at the moment the fact that they do this slight more than humans, and we can point and laugh at them? (While conveniently forgetting that half of us were Yani and the other half Laurel, that half of us were blue and black while the other half were white and gold, etc.) > The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? A reference to the ever diminishing role for God in the late 19th century onwards, but I'm not sure how you're using it here? > Culture could do it though I think. Banks? Sure, but fictional.
        mistermann 3y ago
        All this considered, and during this process, did you happen to form any conclusions (or ~"update weights"), consciously or unconsciously (in reality)? I think it's interesting how the human mind can "know" whether things that are unknown can be modeled, or not, and I happen to believe that this phenomenon occurs within reality (where I believe the comments within this thread are), bending that portion of it. I also believe that this phenomenon is fundamental. But then, there "is" "no evidence" for any of this...and we all know what that means!
  - aruss 3y ago
    Then I would say your theoretical model is wrong or incomplete or makes for a circular argument (it's an assumption and not proven that finite matter evolving through time reduces to a lookup table).
Karellen 3y ago
> the (local) universe is finite and deterministic, Radioactive decay and spontaneous pair production say otherwise on the deterministic front.
logifail 3y ago
> the (local) universe is finite and deterministic "It is not possible for the Universe being deterministic at any level. Only theories can be deterministic, practical reality is never"[0] Q: Can you calculate your local universe's past states given its present state? [0] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99163/is-it-possible-for-the-universe-to-be-deterministic-at-one-level-but-not-at-a-h https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99163/is-it-p...
somewhereoutth 3y ago
Simply not true. Of course it is comforting for computer people to believe the world they live in is a giant computer, but that is not our real reality.

ben_w 3y ago

"""the number of bits required to perfectly recreate the natural matter of the average-sized U.S. adult male human brain down to the quantum level on a computer is about 2.6×10^42 bits of information (see Bekenstein bound for the basis for this calculation).""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data) (That said, I think quantum physics makes it "all a Markov chain" rather than "all a lookup table").