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

How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#51

Post by fallingknife »

timeagain wrote: post #9

Related: Why philosophers should care about computational complexity by Scott Aaronson [1]. If you have even a faint interest in philisophy and have taken algorithms 101 you will find something mind-blowing in this paper. My favorite part is about how the “Chinese room” problem takes on totally different character depending on your assumptions about the type of machinery behind the black box. [1] https://www.scottaar…

The Chinese room problem always seemed pointless to me precisely because we have to make assumptions about how it works.

The whole thing basically boils down to "there's this room that can speak perfect Chinese, and we don't know how it works, or how your brain works, but somehow we can say with absolute certainly that they couldn't possibly be the same."

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#52

Post by tiffanyg »

nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

The universe most certainly has a mysterious affinity with mathematics.

Is that really true?

Could it be more fair to say that mathematics has a (not so) mysterious affinity with the universe?

Specifically, where do our 'axioms' come from? Why did people spend centuries trying to prove the parallel postulate?

Partly, I'm being rhetorical, but, also, partly I'm really not. I would certainly not categorically dispute what you wrote, but I'd also not embrace it 'out-of-hand'.

... So, 'the floor is open', so-to-speak... if any have other perspectives on math-universe connection, rebuttals, etc. :)

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#53

Post by tiffanyg »

tsunamifury wrote: post #26
nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

You might really enjoy All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. He wasn’t the first to try this, and many failed before him. Most people don’t know that the entire concept of the “ecosystem” comes from a computational view of ecology. It’s bigger problem than just to this. It’s that we’ve based everything off the Club of Rome style mindset of society and it’s all failed. But we haven’t figured out another way. S…

figure out the computational stable state of society

Hahahaha!! That's so "psychohistory" ... it suggests such, almost 'individual'-like intention.

Also, none of it has failed. That's an absurd interpretation of where we are. The real problem is that everything we do ... all the day-to-day problems we solve, all the systems we build that fit and do a 'good job' helping us, say, in some respect, ... set us up to need even more of the same basically. As you wrote elsewhere ... increasingly complex etc.

I'd flesh out more, but, must run now.

The reality is simply that we WON'T outrun reality. There is no failure, nor is there success ... that dualistic thinking really tends to obscure rather than clarify ... by anchoring some 'conclusion' based on some specific perspective and cutting off wider views. We will follow 'the laws' of other organisms ... our own specific path, but the same basic fundamental arc ... game theoretic and in less ... abstract framings.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#54

Post by pigeons »

kromem wrote: post #12

It's pretty wild to have gone from watching a lecture from Neil Turok (who is currently my favorite theoretical physicist with a "here's my idea for what physics currently has wrong with its model") and looking at Wolfram's rambling. Between this and the recent "techno-optimist" rant, I get the sense that maybe we shouldn't give popular voices platforms for things outside the scope that made them famous in the first…

I followed Jordan's Birmingham baseball run and I thought he showed a lot of promise.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#55

Post by ergonaught »

Without diminishing Mathematica/WA, have any of his ideas produced tangible, actionable results post-1990?

It's a serious question rather than snark as I am only moderately familiar with his work. I appreciate some of his thoughts (ex: computational irreducibility), but I feel like I've got at least 20 years of asking "So what?" when he publishes. And yet here we are, discussing him, again.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#57

Post by faeriechangling »

nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

I wish I could fail as well as him

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#58

Post by nathanfig »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #47
nathanfig wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how this creates free will?

One might use computational irreducibility to says that the only way to predict your behavior is to observe your behavior. Any system that could predict you must first recreate you. For those that see determinism as undermining free will, this gives one way to conceptualize the idea that you have ownership of your choices despite determinism.

Not sure this allows a meaningful definition of free will, since if nothing can predict me neither can I.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#59

Post by hackinthebochs »

nathanfig wrote: post #58
hackinthebochs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might use computational irreducibility to says that the only way to predict your behavior is to observe your behavior. Any system that could predict you must first recreate you. For those that see determinism as undermining free will, this gives one way to conceptualize the idea that you have ownership of your choices despite determinism.

Not sure this allows a meaningful definition of free will, since if nothing can predict me neither can I.

Nothing turns on whether you can predict your actions/choices. You do not need the power to predict yourself to act.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#60

Post by Salgat »

tiffanyg wrote: post #52
nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

The universe most certainly has a mysterious affinity with mathematics. Is that really true? Could it be more fair to say that mathematics has a (not so) mysterious affinity with the universe? Specifically, where do our 'axioms' come from? Why did people spend centuries trying to prove the parallel postulate? Partly, I'm being rhetorical, but, also, partly I'm really not. I would certainly not categorically dispute w…

I think it's more just the fact that our universe seems to fit extremely rigid, unbreakable rules definable by math. If we lived in a simulation for example, you could have phenomena that "break" these rules at any given time.
Post reply on HN