Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe • Hacker News Board

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#171

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 1:12 PM UTC

eref wrote: post #168

naasking wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately, you land on a model where all consistent mathematical representations of a reality exist. [...] IIRC there are no arguments about computation or what underlying medium(s) are involved, it seems like a separate question. These are actually related by Goedel's incompleteness theorems and the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Computation and mathematics are inextricably linked. The Computable Universe is a necessa…

It links a certain axiom set with computations, not all of mathematics (i.e. the set of all axiom sets), doesn’t it?

If you accept that every mathematical structure of interest has an intuitionistic construction (as is currently believed to be the case), then every mathematical structure has an expression as a computer program.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#172

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 1:17 PM UTC

westoncb wrote: post #167

naasking wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (in other words, it would be assuming your conclusion in your argument). To be convincing, it's not necessary to claim that any particular position is definitely true, I should only need to demonstrate that said position solves open problems that have not or cannot be solved by other positions while being of comparable complexity, conceptually. This is indeed the case for something like the mathematical universe ov…

There is a solution without requiring the universe be made of math: math just describes it instead. You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking. The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification, so sure it is technically an answer but saying the moon is…

> You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well,

The philosophical implications are far broader than that. The mathematical universe provides working foundations for a lot of philosophy and physics. For instance, the multiverse entailed by the mathematical universe explains why fine tuning for life isn't necessary.

> but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking.

You can keep looking despite accepting that the mathematical universe is currently our best explanation. Your implication that we wouldn't do this is simply bizarre. Would you shout equally loudly that we shouldn't build on our best scientific theory simply because it may not explain everything?

> The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification

Except I just covered the justification: the fact that it explains plenty of philosophical and scientific problems without introducing unnecessary complexity. What more justification could you possibly need?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you're either special pleading or moving the goalposts simply because you don't like the idea of the mathematical universe.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#173

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 1:21 PM UTC

westoncb wrote: post #164

naasking wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We must be using different definitions of subjectivity. I'm just referring to whatever one experiences at some point in time. Do you experience anything? Then you have subjectivity. We are, because an ontology that takes subjectivity as primitive/irreducible is different than an ontology that reduces apparent subjectivity via third-party objective facts. You subscribe to the former, I subscribe to the latter. It is…

I'm not talking about an ontology--that concept presupposes too much already. What I'm talking about is more basic: if someone blows in your ear, do you experience anything? Whatever it is that you experience is what I mean by subjectivity. If you do not experience anything, then this universe is a much weirder place than I already thought:)

> What I'm talking about is more basic: if someone blows in your ear, do you experience anything? Whatever it is that you experience is what I mean by subjectivity.

You're evading the issue. You initially claimed that there is nothing to prove about subjectivity. This is patently false.

The subjectivity you apparently experience by observation, if taken at face value as you initially suggested, ie. "there is nothing to prove", is logically irreducible to third-party objective facts.

And yet, third-party objective facts are the best explanation we have for everything else.

Therefore, you do have something to prove regarding subjective experience, contra your original claim.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#174

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 1:29 PM UTC

placebo wrote: post #157

naasking wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We must be using different definitions of subjectivity. I'm just referring to whatever one experiences at some point in time. Do you experience anything? Then you have subjectivity. We are, because an ontology that takes subjectivity as primitive/irreducible is different than an ontology that reduces apparent subjectivity via third-party objective facts. You subscribe to the former, I subscribe to the latter. It is…

I don't subscribe to either (and I'd venture to say neither does westoncb). My view is that both are flawed interpretations of reality. Both dualists and materialists assume "objects" to have some sort of independent existence and the argument between them is that the former claims there is something else that also exists while the latter claims nothing else exists. However ask yourself, what sort of existence test c…

> However ask yourself, what sort of existence test can any object (or concept for that matter) pass without the subjective knowing of it?

This question doesn't yield any insight, because it still leaves us with the question of the nature of subjectivity, a term you use with impunity but without definition!

You seem to be implying that subjectivity and objects must form some sort of recursive relation, but this then already assumes subjectivity is irreducible and the question at hand is precisely whether such an elaborate construct is necessary. There's plenty of evidence hinting that we're just special pleading about consciousness's special properties.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#175

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 1:35 PM UTC

westoncb wrote: post #129

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, as far as I know, I definitely have an actively inferring predictive-coding central nervous system, so I know I'm in here. But you keep insisting you're a ghost, so I can't really be sure you're not a zombie. After all, I only get access to your behavior, so I can't see that you've got a proper predictive system in there at all. Whenever I try to cut you open and get at it, you keep yelling about qualia and hum…

> But you keep insisting you're a ghost I think there has been some miscommunication if what you got from my comment is an insistence that I (and others) are less than what's suggested in the article. What I'm speaking of is strictly addition. If anything, the ghost metaphor what be more applicable to someone claiming 'we are only ' abstraction X (e.g. mathematics). Or Maybe I'm not following your intention there.

>Or Maybe I'm not following your intention there.

That's probably because without a proper cognitive system, you don't have intentionality ;-).

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#176

Post by placebo » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #174

placebo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't subscribe to either (and I'd venture to say neither does westoncb). My view is that both are flawed interpretations of reality. Both dualists and materialists assume "objects" to have some sort of independent existence and the argument between them is that the former claims there is something else that also exists while the latter claims nothing else exists. However ask yourself, what sort of existence test c…

> However ask yourself, what sort of existence test can any object (or concept for that matter) pass without the subjective knowing of it? This question doesn't yield any insight, because it still leaves us with the question of the nature of subjectivity, a term you use with impunity but without definition! You seem to be implying that subjectivity and objects must form some sort of recursive relation, but this then…

I did not mean to imply that subjectivity is irreducible, but rather to say that it a mistaken belief that is the flip side of another mistaken belief (i.e reality is the objects/concepts we use to describe it).

>it still leaves us with the question of the nature of subjectivity, a term you use with impunity but without definition!

I didn't try to promote or define subjectivity, I challenged you to define an object without making any references to something subjective (as this is the ontology you said you subscribe to). What I was getting at is that you'll be hard pressed to present any object that is not a concept created by a subject. Mind you, I'm not saying objects and subjects are real, but that they are co-created by the mind and as such are equally unreal as far as representing what actually is.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#177

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

placebo wrote: post #176

naasking wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However ask yourself, what sort of existence test can any object (or concept for that matter) pass without the subjective knowing of it? This question doesn't yield any insight, because it still leaves us with the question of the nature of subjectivity, a term you use with impunity but without definition! You seem to be implying that subjectivity and objects must form some sort of recursive relation, but this then…

I did not mean to imply that subjectivity is irreducible, but rather to say that it a mistaken belief that is the flip side of another mistaken belief (i.e reality is the objects/concepts we use to describe it). > it still leaves us with the question of the nature of subjectivity, a term you use with impunity but without definition! I didn't try to promote or define subjectivity, I challenged you to define an object…

> I didn't try to promote or define subjectivity, I challenged you to define an object without making any references to something subjective

I can easily posit an ontology that references no subjects. Just because I formulated said ontology from sense perception doesn't entail that it references subjective concepts.

> Mind you, I'm not saying objects and subjects are real, but that they are co-created by the mind and as such are equally unreal as far as representing what actually is.

Except as per Moore, this sort of skepticism necessarily presupposes the very knowledge that it attempts to undermine, and therefore it contradicts itself and is literally false.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#178

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #131

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Colors, smells, pains, etc. are not part of the mathematical or physical description, so you can't simply dismiss the problem of qualia by labelling it as dualism. Where do the colors, tastes, feels come from? What sort of math would result in those experiences? Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain, actually. Sure, it doesn't explain everything , but it pretty well dispels the int…

How do you get anything other than likely correlation from "Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain", and what does it have to do with physics or math? At most, you've provided a biological basis for consciousness. But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc?

> But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc?

Why wouldn't it? Not everyone shares your underinformed intuitions. Predictions about light are colors, predictions about reward are pleasure, etc.

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#179

Post by visarga » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:22 PM UTC

placebo wrote: post #170

visarga wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered reinforcement learning as a paradigm that can explain the interplay of subjectivity vs objectivity? Artificial RL agents have perception, values, and can act in the world, learning how to maximize utility. They have a subjective view of the world given by their perception and value system (past learned). I think RL opens subjectivity up for examination.

AI in general (whether via RL or whichever new development that will surface) opens up a fascinating new arena for learning about how agents operate, and investigating the soft problem of consciousness (i.e, what are the type of processes and the complexity involved that is required for having an inner experience), but I stand by my assertion that it will never explain the hard problem of consciousness, and no concep…

By saying "no conceptual explanation ever will" you put consciousness in a category of its own, supernatural or mysterious, like Chalmers. That's just a soft form of dualism.

You have sense organs and sensory cortex that creates representations. Those representations are evaluated subjectively for their utility, thus, generating emotion. This is qualia. What else is there? The fact that it feels like something to see red or blue? That's just sensation + emotional response.

I know it feels like I just gave you the soft problem of consciousness instead of the hard problem, but I don't think the hard problem is anything beyond a loop of perceive - evaluate - act - learn in the world.

If you want the ontological cause of consciousness, then it must be the environment because the environment teaches the agent perception and values. Values and emotions appear from the game the agent is playing. So the substrate of consciousness is not the brain, but the "game".

Re: Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe

#180

Post by titzer » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #113

kingkawn wrote: post #94

a Subset cannot have greater cardinality than the set it derives from. Subjective existence cannot be reduced to Math because it is our explorations in subjectivity that led to math’s invention and refinement

> a Subset cannot have greater cardinality than the set it derives from. I am not completely certain in the subtleties of non-standard set theory, but at least if we replace the axiom of Choice (AC) by the axiom of Determinacy (AD) - which is perfectly fine, though it is less common to do mathematics in this system - we can partition the real line R by an equivalence relation that has more equivalence classes than el…

> we can partition the real line R by an equivalence relation that has more equivalence classes than elements of R

That's not surprising, since an equivalence relation is a function of two elements of the set, i.e. O(N^2), and a subset is a function of a single element, i.e. O(N) . The OP mentioned subsets, and an equivalence relation is not a subset of the original set--it doesn't even typecheck.