Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#131

Post by PeterisP »

gnramires wrote: post #59
mjburgess wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue isn't brains no algorithm running on a cpu can move a muscle -- it is precisely that movement is a spatiotemporal property which means no turing machine can realise it movement isn't a symbolic operation

What do you suppose those computers are doing, then? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfb6aEUMC04&t=115s

I would go a step further and look at the research on medical devices for spinal-damage patients which try to literally control their existing muscles through a computer; the concept of neuroprosthesis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_electrical_stimulat... working to design algorithms on CPU to move muscles, as the parent post words it.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#132

Post by felixleungsc »

Now I see why the elephant. From the references:

> [2] “I’m not very impressed with what you’ve been doing.” As recounted the famous physicist Freeman Dyson himself, this is how Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi started their 1953 meeting. “Well, what do you think of the numerical agreement?”, Dyson countered. To which, Fermi replied “You know, Johnny von Neumann always used to say: With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. So I don’t find the numerical agreement impressive either.”

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#133

Post by ur-whale »

pveierland wrote: post #45
air7 wrote: post #17

This reminds me of a joke idea I read somewhere: You can encode the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica using a single mark on a simple stick! Just encode the text as a ascii codes after the decimal dot of a zero. (0.656168.. etc). Then just mark that ratio of the sticks length and you're done...

My shot at the calculation for fun :-) Stick encoding with graphite resolution (0.335 * 10^-9 meter) [1]: "Uti" (31 bits -> 3 UTF8 characters) Stick encoding with Planck resolution (1.616255 * 10^-35 meter) [2]: "Utility ought " (115 bits -> 14 UTF8 characters) Complete first sentence: "Utility ought to be the principal intention of every publication." [3] It appears that this storage scheme may not be suited towards…

> (115 bits -> 14 UTF8 characters)

Not exactly. If the 115bits are the hash/retrieval key of the actual content, then that can be a lot of information. Just have to have a big enough DB.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#135

Post by Joker_vD »

goldenkey wrote: post #112
eru wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Chaos arises in Newtonian systems just fine. They are non-linear. But Quantum Mechanics is linear. See eg https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33344/is-the-uni... for a discussion, and https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/island.pdf for a longer treatment.

QM being linear doesn't make the universe linear. Schrodinger's equation doesn't work across measurements (or universes.) And if you try to weasel out of that by saying we will describe the multiverse instead, you have just created the unexplainable phenomena of being in a specific universe, with no way to accurately describe the process behind the random choice of the universe you reside in.

> unexplainable phenomena of being in a specific universe

One universe has "observer" (a bunch of variables, really) in one state, another has it in different state. Those variables encode some information about themselves, so indeed in different universes the different "versions" of the observer are different, and each perceive it as universe randomly deciding to chose their version of existence. So what?

We're parts of the physical reality so trying to describing physics from the point of view of an out-of-universe observer, while psychologically attractive, is ultimately futile: in QM, such approach breaks very quickly.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#136

Post by nathancahill »

mjburgess wrote: post #22
air7 wrote: post #17

This reminds me of a joke idea I read somewhere: You can encode the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica using a single mark on a simple stick! Just encode the text as a ascii codes after the decimal dot of a zero. (0.656168.. etc). Then just mark that ratio of the sticks length and you're done...

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…

Something that I love about analog cameras and film: the "resolution" of film is infinite. Infinitely informationally dense as you say.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#137

Post by mjburgess »

adrianN wrote: post #127
mjburgess wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument: 1) Intelligence requires being spatiotemproally acting-on and being acted-on by a spatiotemporally dynamic environment. 2) Dynamical spa'temp properties of the body enable (1) 3) These properties are continuous features of the bodily (eg., organic plasticity) 4) continuous properties are irreducible to measurably discrete ones 5) computers are systems which we build that have measurably discrete systems the…

If meat is magical, just build computers out of meat then.

Sure, I agree.

The issue is the word "computer" means not "device we have made" but "universal turing machine".

Ie., a computer is any system which realises a function from the Naturals to the Naturals.

Physics barely, if at all, has any use whatsoever for those functions. It is a very important point.

Computer scientists (ie., discrete mathematicians) are not the people who are even able to describe, engineer and build whatever is needed for an AI -- if, as I claim, continuous dynamical properties are needed.

(As, for example, they are needed by pretty much every system.)

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#138

Post by rhn_mk1 »

nathancahill wrote: post #136
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…

Something that I love about analog cameras and film: the "resolution" of film is infinite. Infinitely informationally dense as you say.

That's not really true in any sense. Film has grain size, and optics have a diffraction limit.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#139

Post by adrianN »

mjburgess wrote: post #137
adrianN wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If meat is magical, just build computers out of meat then.

Sure, I agree. The issue is the word "computer" means not "device we have made" but "universal turing machine". Ie., a computer is any system which realises a function from the Naturals to the Naturals. Physics barely, if at all, has any use whatsoever for those functions. It is a very important point. Computer scientists (ie., discrete mathematicians) are not the people who are even able to describe, engineer and bu…

Computer scientists do study computers that use real numbers, for example it's known that such computers can solve all problems in #P in polynomial time. Many other areas of computer science also use plenty of real analysis.

Re: How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

#140

Post by omega3 »

Nition wrote: post #71
pveierland wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My shot at the calculation for fun :-) Stick encoding with graphite resolution (0.335 * 10^-9 meter) [1]: "Uti" (31 bits -> 3 UTF8 characters) Stick encoding with Planck resolution (1.616255 * 10^-35 meter) [2]: "Utility ought " (115 bits -> 14 UTF8 characters) Complete first sentence: "Utility ought to be the principal intention of every publication." [3] It appears that this storage scheme may not be suited towards…

"Simply" scale up the stick to your desired minimum level of precision!

Stick scaling left as an exercise for the reader.
Post reply on HN