CeffTheCeph

I really hope that the people of Thunder Bay recognize how fortunate they are that they have such a dedicated group of local journalists actively engaged in battling decades of systemic racism, backed by an independent journalism institution actually committed to strengthening democracy.

That sort of thing seems like it is a little less common in our western world these days. What is it that they keep saying, democracy dies in darkness?

Several years ago I was taking economic classes at my local university out of interest and to be more informed about intentions in our geopolitical world.

A few years after those classes I ran as a candidate for city council in my local municipal elections on a platform based on sound economic policy. I did not get elected, not even close, as I was running opposite an incumbent.

A few years after that I saw this man at a coffee shop that I knew I recognized from somewhere, but had no chance of remembering him on my own. He came up to me and prompted me, and I then realized that he was one of my economic profs, retired now, from when I was taking courses all those years ago.

After brief pleasantries he said: “I recognized your name in the last election. I wanted to say that I voted for you.”

Quite surprised, I managed to respond with a sincere smile on my face: “coming from an economist, that really means a lot to me, thank you”.

I mean, it’s the same question as Plato’s cave

Did you read Penrose’s “Shadows of the Mind”? The ‘shadows’ is a specific reference to Plato’s cave.

No, what sets human apart is how we can communicate in detail and specifics. A single human conciouness sucks, it needs to learn from others. Just like a well trained dog will seem smart. It can’t speak, but it can listen if someone teaches it.

I would suggest that, even though they can’t speak using words, dogs most certainly can communicate in details and specifics.

It is our failure, our inability to interpret what the dog is communicating that just makes us feel like we are better at communicating than dogs. The whole point of my piss story is that some animals communicate complex ideas through their pee, a form of communication that we have no ability to properly interpret. Dogs have no ability to interpret the detail and specifics in our words, but they do communicate detail and specifics through pee. There is no distinction in the communication process there, the distinction is that our brains have the ability to create abstractions using words and symbols, and dog brains do not have that ability.

Which is why shit gets so fucked up when people stop communicating and get tribal about shit.

I don’t disagree with you at all that there is a big difference in how humans and dogs communicate. My intention isn’t to ‘argue’ with you or quibble over the semantics surrounding the relationship between consciousness and communication. I just want to point out here that when I saw the word “No,” above I instinctively felt as though I was on the defensive. This defensive reaction to the word “no” is actually “why shit gets so fucked up” and people “get tribal about shit”.

Maybe!

When my dog sniffs a pee stain out in the bush he instantly knows what species left it there, how long ago it was left there, whether there is a threat to him, whether whoever left it is in heat, a whole bunch of actual information useful for his survival. I can only smell stale piss.

My dog knows whether it was an other dog that peed, or a fox, or a wolf, or a lynx, or a marten, he knows there is a difference between them and knows how to react to those differences. He can map their geographical movements over time and establish patterns of his own movements that could give him the advantage in the event that their path crosses his at some point. But he isn’t aware enough to know that that is what he is actually doing when he smells pee.

I can recognize and taxonomically label all of the potential piss perps, look through their geneological history and map out their ancestors over millions of years, and I can describe in detail the fur trade history in the region and how it impacted the European economy over the past 300 years. But no matter how hard I try, it still just smells like stale piss to me.

Haha! Thank you so much for this comment!

I am currently writing a Master’s thesis on complex adaptive systems and have been having such a hard time coming to terms with how the reductivist worldview completely dominates western science, including neurobiology.

To be fair, I think even Penrose still holds this Platonic view and is desperate to find the mechanistic process of wavefunction collapse through gravity, somehow suggesting that gravity is responsible for the appearance of our conscious thoughts in our heads?? I don’t know, I’m probably interpreting it all wrong, I’m not an expert on Quantum Gravity.

I’ve just been convinced by my dog that I have a more developed level of conciseness compared to him, just as he has a more developed sense of smell compared to me.

This is only a glimpse into the Canadian syrup cartel wars…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Maple_Syrup_Heist

I genuinely appreciate your concern. I’m really glad that you are here in Canada, as open minded people make our world a better place.

Engaging with racism is always helpful, in any context. Here in TBay there used to be a city committee directly committed to addressing racism in the city. They had a campaign headlined: “If you witness racism, say something”, with a link to report observations. The headline was on billboards, city buses and everything around the city.

I suppose enough local tax payers complained about inefficient use of tax dollars and that committee has since been retired. But the international headlines about TBay continue.

I am from Thunder Bay and have lived here my whole life. These are not new stories, and the highest 10 year average in Canada in this case is not a surprise. TBay is a bottleneck between eastern and western Canada. It is a hub for dozens of Northern Ontario remote First Nations communities. In all of the small communities outside of TBay, there are billboards on the highway that are directed specifically at reminding people that “Human Trafficking is a Crime”. I don’t intend to be directly confrontational, but the comment:

maybe there should be some awareness campaign and/or educational programs to get the public more knowledgeable and work to recognize and report these instances or avoid them.

is incredibly ignorant. Located on the north shore of Lake Superior, TBay is visited by dozens of Great Lake and International cargo ships daily during the shipping season; it isn’t an issue of the public not recognizing that trafficking is taking place, it is a crime of opportunity. TBay is also regularly considered to be the ‘murder capital of Canada’. We have some of the highest drug overdose rates in the country as well. Some people might be oppositional to my point of view here, but the problem is systemic racism.

The only access to most of the remote First Nations in Northwestern Ontario is through TBay. Drug trafficking as well as human trafficking up North can only happen through the city. A lot of these remote communities are also struggling with increasing populations and limited access to resources. Several of these communities are under boil water advisories due to lack of resources and infrastructure, some of which have been so for over 15 years. This issue is incredibly complex, but realistically it comes down to the fact that anti-Indigenous racism is rampant and very well off still within our country, despite Harper’s apology and all of the ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ that has been happening lately.

Some media resources, in case anyone is interested in looking further into the issue: Brief Podcast series on the topic Award winning narrative outlining the overt racism in TBay

Your circumstances are different, but consider the lyrics to the song “Almost Summer” by Jason Collett for a typical experience… https://youtu.be/xVnF0GsiwoY

That is just how rotating things work. This is why vehicles need a differential, so that when you turn a corner the inside wheel can rotate at a different speed as the outside wheel.

Thanks, I think that is a useful observation. I agree in that I wouldn’t necessarily say it is a problem for the validity of the proof itself, but I do like the extra scrutiny.

This is fun, I appreciate it. I’ve only made it as far down this rabbit hole to the part of building AGI on current architecture. Had no idea how much deeper this thing goes. This is the reason I was engaged in the first place, thanks for leading me down here.

Tbf, I personally don’t think consciousness is necessarily non-algorithmic but that’s a different debate.

I’m looking forward to that one when it comes up!

Thank you, this is helping. However, I am still not following your logic here, I do not know what you are referring to when you say I am missing the initial step?

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.

Is this the initial step? And if so, what are the proposals that are being assumed?

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue).

I have read through the abstracts and fail to see a connection regarding assumptions in those papers and the assumptions in this proof. Can you please clarify further for me? What are the specific assumptions being made in these papers that are also being made in the proof?

An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe

There are several different interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are very valid arguments in favor of and against every one of them. If you accept one interpretation over an other, would that not just imply you believe that the arguments in favor of that particular interpretation are more logically valid than the other arguments? And so, it follows that you would continue that line of logical reasoning in further interpretations of theory?

I don’t understand how favoring objective collapse theory over objective observability is in any way making assumptions about how formal computational systems are logically constructed.

Thanks for responding! I never meant to claim that I am right. The whole purpose I am engaged in here is that I do not understand the proof at all and am trying to understand it better.

Here is where F_QG is introduced in the proof:

As we do not have a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, several different axiomatic systems have been proposed to model quantum gravity [26–32]. In all these programs, it is assumed a candidate theory of quantum gravity is encoded as a computational formal system FQG = {LQG, ΣQG, Ralg}

Here, LQG a first-order language whose non-logical symbols denote quantum states, fields, curvature, causal relations, etc. ΣQG = {A1, A2, . . . } is a finite (or at least recursively- enumerable) set of closed LQG-sentences embodying the fundamental physical principles. Ralg the standard, effective rules of inference used for computations

Is this not just saying that it is the existing theories (string theory, LQG, etc.) that are assuming gravity takes the form of a formal computational system? And so, F_QG as it is defined above is how any formal computational system is logically constructed, as in it has to have those three components in order to logically be a formal computational system?

I am not a logician and do not understand what a first-order language is, or closed sentences or all those logic terms in the definition of notation. However, is F_QG in this case not just logically how any theory would need to be constructed in order to logically be a formal computational system? Is there an assumption being made here with regard to those three components in how formal systems are logically constructed?

Thank you for this. My recent hyper fixation has lead me down the rabbit hole of non-algorithmic theories of consciousness with a specific focus on the theory mentioned in this proof. Would I be interpreting this proof correctly in asserting that if consciousness is non-algorithmic, this proof means AGI is impossible?

Thank you!

This is the third time I have seen this story come up from three different science journalism websites recently.

Here is the actual published proof.

It seems a lot of commenters on these threads have a lot of skepticism about the authors claims, as we should with such a bold claim. Are there any mathematicians or logicians here that can actually unpack the proof with scrutiny and explain it to me in lay terms?

However, their argument rely on that ”quantum gravity” is what makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this statement is.

Here is the assumption the authors use that brings quantum gravity into the proof:

As we do not have a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, several different axiomatic systems have been proposed to model quantum gravity [26–32]. In all these programs, it is assumed a candidate theory of quantum gravity is encoded as a computational formal system F_QG = {L_QG, ΣQG, R_alg} .

I interpret their assumption to mean that describing quantum gravity in this way is how it would be defined as a formal computational system. This is the approach that all of the other leading theories (String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity) have taken, which have failed to provide a fully consistent and complete description of gravity. I think the proof is saying that non-computational components can be incorporated into a fully consistent and complete formal system and so taking a non-computational approach to quantum gravity would then incorporate gravity into the formal system thereby completing the theory of everything.

Does that make sense? I am not a logician by any extent and I have no idea how robust this proof really is. I do think the bold claims the authors are making deserve heavy scrutiny, but I am not the one to provide that scrutiny.

Disproving the ‘matrix theory’ is just the catchy headline to garner clicks. The results of the research are beyond just the matrix. For example, this proof means that non-algorithmic determinism isn’t something that represents a lack of deeper theoretical understanding. There are theories that consciousness is non-algorithmic. In that case, this proof means that AGI is also impossible.