**From:** Ben Goertzel (*ben@goertzel.org*)

**Date:** Tue Aug 02 2005 - 00:44:43 MDT

**Next message:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Previous message:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**In reply to:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> It seems like the "this" argument just means bringing up a few more
*

*> possibilities.
*

It involves bringing up broader theoretical possibilities, as well as

specific technical possibilities...

For instance, quantum physics can be derived from the assumption that

uncertainty should be quantified using complex-valued probabilities (cf Saul

Yousseff's work). Mathematically it seems consistent that there are more

general physics theories that use quaternionic and octonionic

probabilities; and if this kind of understanding were possible, it would

lead to a lot of interesting phenomena ... which I have some speculations

about, that I won't go i nto now...

(This is just one among many examples I could give, and I realize the above

paragraph doesn't explain much, but is just an allusion...)

*>If all of those possibilities were known to not have
*

*> exploits (or,
*

*> assume for the sake of argument that those possibilities do not
*

*> have exploits):
*

*> would you still assert that magic is an issue worth worrying
*

*> about? It seems
*

*> like you would. If so, then you still have to answer my arguments
*

*> about why I
*

*> don't think it's rational to believe in "magic," and you can't
*

*> use any of your
*

*> suppositions about incomplete theories of physics.
*

If physics and science in general seemed more complete than they do, then my

estimate of the probability of a superhuman AI finding a box-exploit would

be significantly lower than it is now -- but still not as low as your seems

to be.

So you're right. The argument from the known (empirical and conceptual)

incompleteness of physics is only PART of my reason for believing a

superhuman AI could find a box-exploit. The other part is the part you

don't agree with, which is a general argument that if X is a lot smarter

than Y, then X can probably find a way out of any box that Y creates.

It occurs to me now that it might be possible to prove a mathematical

theorem to this effect. One could look at an average over all possible

physical universes (assuming some probability distribution on them), and

over all pairs of organisms X and Y within them, then try to prove that "If

X is much smarter than Y, then X can escape from most boxes Y could create."

Now, turning the previous paragraph into a real theorem would involve

formalizing "intelligence" and "organism" and "box" in useful ways (which we

have currently only made limited progress towards), and then proving a

possibly very hard theorem. But I submit that if we did prove something

like this, it would be decent evidence for the "other part" of my reason for

believing a superhuman Ai could find a box-exploit.

-- Ben G

**Next message:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Previous message:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**In reply to:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: large search spaces don't mean magic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT
*