How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

Post by eru » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:20 AM UTC

istjohn wrote: post #109

eru wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's difficult to even imagine a physical theory with unbounded local information. It seems to open the possibility to crazy things like hypercomputation, which do not seem very well defined. (For example: every 1-1/n seconds, (n>1) from now, flip a switch ON/OFF. At what state will the switch be at t>1s? An at exactly t=1s?) I agree with the latter, but the former? Classical Newtonian mechanics is easy enough to i…

Chaos arises in very simple (Newtonian) systems, e.g. the double pendulum[1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

Post by Thorrez » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #19

This reminds me of the "worst way to ask a user for a telephone number" UI, after one UI forced the user to select each digit in a 0-9 dropdown. The specific one I'm thinking of is just spit out a scrollable numeric string of Pi, and make the user scroll until their phone number was the digits of Pi that matched it. My (7 digit) phone number occurs after digit position 9_000_000, and occurs 21 times in the first 200_…

Post by pietroppeter » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:31 AM UTC

Tomminn wrote: post #91

I love this as a verifiable implementation of a mathematically trivial, but easy to forget point. So I'm sad that when I tried to recreate the elephant scatter plot, I haven't been able to. Anyone find exact parameters that work for tau and alpha? Just wish they'd given a complete list of the decimal places for those animals. It would've been something to plot them yourself.

Post by dtagames » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:35 AM UTC

mgraczyk wrote: post #35

mjburgess wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this as a joke, but a radical and important point. Reality, in being geometrical, is infinitely informationally dense (with a discrete conception of information). This distinction between geometrical space and time, and discrete algorithmic computability is unbridgeable. And hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject: AI, brain scanning readers, teleporters, etc and most sci-fi computation…

I wouldn't say that the distinction is "unbridgeable". Keep in mind that we send packets over plenty of "geometrical" and seemingly infinitely dense analog channels all the time, like electricity over a copper wire or EM waves over the air. The "mark on a stick" channel has a capacity like any other channel. If you're sending just one symbol, you could easily calculate the information capacity given a desired probabi…

Post by mjburgess » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #94

mjburgess wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for my purposes defining continuous = unmeasurably discrete produces the same results. Ie., there is an irreducible geometrical continuity in the sense that no discontinuity can ever appear. The state density is maximal. via this route we reporduce the same point: computationalism/simulation'ism' is then just the thesis that computers qua measurably discrete systems can realise dense unmeasurable discrete sys…

I agree that we can’t reject the hypothesis that reality is continuous (and, even if spacetime turns out to be discrete, it seems hard to imagine that the amplitudes of the wavefunction(s) have finitely many possible complex values, though I suppose we can’t rule it out) I disagree that this necessarily implies any difficulty for the possibility of brain scanning and AI. Just as things sampled faster than the nyquist…