You’ve probably heard the story…
...
Complete entry
Posted by
Virgilic on 03/04 at 05:58 PM
Perhaps it is not physics but metaphysics that holds the answer.
Shakespear gave a clue: to be or not to be, that is the question!
Make the ultimate substrate of existence the object of this question.
And try to answer the question.
There is no answer, it can’t be any answer to this question.
Perhaps from the logical indeterminacy of the ultimate cause, existence and non-existence arise and “co-exist”.
It is conceivable that this is the source of the 0s and 1s that make up the infinite dimensional multi/meta-verse, or, more simply put, the entirety of existence.
Posted by
mjgeddes on 03/04 at 07:35 PM
Ben,
You seem to be able to intuitively and immediately grasp obvious truths that many of the AI crowd like ‘Less Wrong’ seem cognitively blind to.
Indeed, everything is ultimately just ‘the third’ (relationship/interface) or to be precise, symbolic representation.
Applying this to logic, is it not intuitively obvious that Bayesian Induction cannot fully capture intelligence, that the ‘Bayesian religion’ of the ‘Sing Inst/Less Wrong’ crowd is seriously misguided?
Consider the ‘threeness’ you mentioned again and apply it to logic:
The 1st = Deductive Inference (e.g. Predicate)
The 2nd= Inductive Inference (e.g. Bayes)
The 3rd= Analogical Inference (e.g Categorization)
Note the 3rd here, analogical inference is what deals in logical representations - it is the fundamental ‘relational’ step, and therefore it MUST be more powerful than Induction (each level subsumes the one below).
There is a certain sense in which this is indeed obvious.
IEET Blog