[FRIAM] Divergent Optimism
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Thu Jan 19 13:12:33 EST 2023
Glen sed:
/Excellent! Thanks. Robinson's words sound a little Chicken Little
to me. But the focus on //_open_//is something I'm committed to. I
still waffle about whether the logic(s) of the universe are
open-ended (by which I mean truly novel events and structures can
occur) or not (by which I mean, all seemingly new structures were
programmed in the whole time, which also implies things about the
universality of any singular logic). I want it to be open. //
////
//And the only way we can falsify my tendency to believe it is open
is to find evidence that it's closed, to reduce everything to a, one
singular, GUT ... and, as time goes by, I'm steadily being disabused
of my beliefs in the openness of anything. But even if everything's
closed, there are sub-problems therein, //*interesting*//ways in
which it is closed that make it //*seem*//open. Systems that might
tolerate multiple types of closure, where some relations are closed
and others open. Etc. That's why logic(s) that tolerate
inconsistency are so cool (to me).
/
I like this formulation.
I've a friend who describes this as: "The laws of the universe might
be pre-determined but the outcomes are not pre-stateable" another way of
stating the "halting problem" in a cosmic rather than just
CS/Algorithmic context?
I am just now (this past month or so) returning to my own maunderings
that come and go on the implications of Quantum Theory and in particular
according to variations on Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler>. It *feels*
like this implies both "open" AND "closed", based on *framing*.
"All things are possible, only some are more *interesting* than
others?"
Ensemble members of such an ensemble multiverse include many where
"causal" logics do not hold, but in those, what *we* know of as
consciousness would have not meaning/traction, so *we* (being apparently
conscious by some definition?) or anything recognizable to us as
conscious would not exist therein?
This, of course, is sweetly confounded by your ideation "/That's why
logic(s) that tolerate inconsistency are so cool (to me)." /(or maybe
I'm trying to be too consistent in my thinking about what qualifies for
consistence?)
/"The universe is flux, life is opinion"/ - Marcus Aurelius
Stumble,
- Steve
On 1/19/23 10:05 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> I coined a new subject to relieve DaveW from having to see his name
> over and over...
>
> I'm sympathetic with *all* the points of view expressed here, though
> not always simultaneously ;)
>
> As /homo faber/ and /homo sapiens/, it is natural that we have
> instincts and cultural habits around "making" and "thinking" our way
> out of our predicaments and it might not be too surprising if there
> were a (collective) Dunning-Kruger effect in our society helping to
> drive us forward from being the early hominids whose ability with
> broken stones and sharpened sticks to the
> mutual-assured-destruction/climate-collapse collective creatures that
> we have become.
>
> It is deep in my nature to want to fiddle with things (make) and ideas
> (think) whether experience tells me that it turns out well or not. I
> am probably more likely to "muck" with things than many here, so I am
> (therefore) sympathetic with ideas which in the extreme become things
> like "geoengineering" and "post/trans humanism" and it is hard for me
> NOT to cheer every SpaceX launch and the science-fiction trope of
> humanity spreading to fill the solar system (Moon, Mars,
> Main/Kuiper/Trojan Asteroids, ice/gas giant moons, cum-Dyson Sphere)
> and the Galaxy(ies)!
>
> Yet, I cringe a little every time we throw over some "evil we (think
> we) know" for some mirage of a bit of "pie in the sky" (pie in your
> eye?). This makes me *such* a wet-blanket neo-luddite on virtually
> every topic, whilst being a bit of a split personality at the same
> time, cheering/hurrying toward the inevitable moment when "the next
> cool thing" becomes "WTF, didn't anyone think before they did that?"
> answered by "it seemed like a good idea at the time"!
>
> But I also have a fondness for ideating on what it would mean for
> humans to "slow our roll" and "look inward" (both personally and
> collectively) long enough for the earth-systems we are running
> over/overdriving to catch up. But it might be deep in our "survival
> instincts" to optimize and leverage at every opportunity even if
> sometimes it looks like we are nothing but techno-utopian lemmings
> diving off a cliff of complexity of our own making. "Be fecund,
> multiply, and innovate like crazy!"
>
> It can be hard (or weirding) to live across this spectrum and
> therefore tend to time-multiplex between those extremes, trying to
> remember enough of one while I'm experiencing the other for some of
> the "tempering" DaveW references.
>
> We talk here often of predictive vs explanatory models, of
> epistimology and ontologies. And in this thread "what would change
> your mind?" which is similar to "how do you know what you know?". My
> own answer to the first question is roughly "I won't know until it
> happens" and the second is "I don't know, but I am always interested
> in finding out (more)"
>
> Mumble,
>
> - Steve
>
>
> On 1/19/23 8:52 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> My optimism is tempered, and less than Pieters.
>>
>> /"When we contemplate the shocking derangement of human affairs which
>> now prevails in most civilized countries, including our own, even the
>> best minds are puzzled and uncertain in their attempts to grasp the
>> situation.The world seems to demand a moral and economic regeneration
>> which it is dangerous to postpone, but as yet impossible to imagine,
>> let alone direct./
>>
>> /We have unprecedented conditions to deal with and novel adjustments
>> to make—there can be no doubt of that. We also have a great stock of
>> scientific knowledge unknown to our grandfathers with which to
>> operate. So novel are the conditions, so copious the knowledge, that
>> we must undertake the arduous task of reconsidering a great part of
>> the opinions about man and his relations to his fellow-men which have
>> been handed down to us by previous generations who lived in far other
>> conditions and who possessed far less information about the world and
>> themselves./
>>
>> */We have, however, first to create an unprecedented attitude of mind
>> to cope with unprecedented conditions, and to utilize unprecedented
>> knowledge. This is the preliminary. and most difficult, step to be
>> taken—far more difficult that one would suspect who fails to realize
>> that in order to take it we must overcome inveterate natural
>> tendencies and artificial habits of long standing. How are we to put
>> ourselves in a position to think of thiigs that we not only never
>> though of before, but are most reluctant to question? In short, how
>> are we to rid ourselves of our fond prejudices and _open our minds_?/*"
>>
>> Those words are from someone few have heard of: James Harvey
>> Robinson, from his book /The Mind in the Making/ published,
>> originally, in 1921. (republished in 2017 by Vigeo Press)
>>
>> The optimism of Altman you quoted is, in my opinion, possible only if
>> we can "open our minds" and shed antiquated minds and
>> counter-productive modes of thinking.
>>
>> Robinson, by the way does not propose an alternative, per se, but
>> does an excellent job of baring the various kinds of thinking and
>> their origins fro the "savage mind" to the scientific revolution.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>>> *Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism.*
>>>
>>> Yes, sadly the world is unequal and those at the bottom of the
>>> economic ladder just don't get a good deal.
>>>
>>> On the positive side, looking back at the history of mankind there
>>> is evidence that it is now better to live than ever in the past for
>>> the large majority of humankind. This is true even though it is the
>>> sad truth that it's very far from perfect; human suffering is a
>>> reality, Glen's comment is sad but true.
>>>
>>> The question of course is whether it will continue to go better?
>>>
>>> It's just impossible to know the future. One person can believe
>>> it'll go better in the future, another that it'll be worse, each
>>> with tons of good arguments.
>>>
>>> I for one, embrace the optimism of Sam Altman, just for completeness
>>> I repeat his quote and give the reference again.
>>> "Intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards
>>> most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting
>>> reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
>>> Taken from
>>> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms :
>>>
>>>
>>> In conclusion, yes I agree with Glen that there are sadly hidden
>>> elements to all the techno-optimism. but this does not dampen my
>>> enthusiasm for the future triggered by abundant intelligence and energy.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 21:08, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that
>>> techno-optimism. E.g.
>>>
>>> https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m
>>>
>>> On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>>> > I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
>>> >
>>> > The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of
>>> course) will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than
>>> humans in all respects, including come up with
>>> creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing
>>> problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and
>>> then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide
>>> goods and services to all in the world,
>>> >
>>> > Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our
>>> future; intelligence and energy. If we have real
>>> abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be very
>>> different indeed.
>>> >
>>> > To quote Sam Altmen at
>>> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms
>>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>
>>> :
>>> >
>>> > "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters
>>> towards most things we want. A future where these are not the
>>> limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be
>>> amazingly better."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels
>>> <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior
>>> is what matters. Analog computers will have imperfect
>>> behavior, and there will be leakage between components. A
>>> large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar
>>> for my purposes. The unrolling would be inside a skull, so
>>> somewhat isolated from interference.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com
>>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of glen
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
>>> > To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
>>> >
>>> > I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion
>>> implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can
>>> tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying
>>> about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by
>>> outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some
>>> sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more
>>> "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
>>> >
>>> > On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> > > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread
>>> some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to
>>> distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230119/311b8101/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list