Prev:  Gravity vs. Atomic Bonds; at times/places, gravity triumphs.
Next: Herald Story is Absolute Nonsense  Minister
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Dec 2009 09:36
Tomasso wrote:
> zzbunker(a)netscape.net wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:

> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not
> application of
> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
> discretisation.
>
> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models of
> parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information can
> stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as "answers to
> questions worth answering".
>
> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
> "sense making".

If that sentence is not trivial, would you please edit it so that
it's readable? Then I'll be able to analyze what your meaning.

<snip>
From: zzbunker on 19 Dec 2009 12:36
On Dec 18, 7:51 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
> zzbun...(a)netscape.net wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
> >> "Forthminder" <menti...(a)myuw.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
> >>> no longer afford. It would be far better to
> >>> reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
> >>> and wasted on nuclear physics and create
> >>> artificial intelligence on supercomputers --
> >>> another spendy resource that should be taken
> >>> away from the Dr. Strangeloves of this world
> >>> and be directed towards what really matters --
> >>> the coming Technological Singularity.
>
> >>> Mentifex
> >>> --
> >>>http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Mind.html
> >>>http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
> >>>http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html
> >>>http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2009/12/nuclear-physics-hi....
>
> >>AIis a branch of (mathematical) physics.
>
> >> Just think of it as a structural extension of information theory.
>
> >    Well, that's impossible. Since the only thing theAIidiots
> >    even know about "structure" is "ICs". Which is why the non-idiot
> >    people invented XML and Desktop Publishing rather than transitors
> > anyway
>
> To make it clearer for you:
>
> I wrote " structural extension", not "physical extension".
>
> >    And since the only thing the idiots know about information theory
> > is IBM
> >    that's why the invented HDTV, mp3, mpeg, Digital Books, USB,
> > Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
> >    Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock
> > Wristwatches,
> >    Digital Terrain Mapping, GPS, Data Fusion, Home Broadband, and the
> > 21st Century.
> >    Rather than idiot stuff like Analytic Continuation anyway.
>
> Well no!
>
> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not application of
> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
> discretisation.
>
> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models
> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
> "answers to questions worth answering".

Since information is bits is only information to mathematicians,
that's why it's called mathematicians, rather than thinking.

Since information in "worth answering" question is only news
to Philosophers, that's why it's call AI.
Rather than Engineering, Desktop Publishing, External Emulators,
Digital Terrain Mapping, Laser Disks, Fiber Optics, The History
Channel,
Holographics, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock Wristwatches,
Rapid Prototyping, or interesting.




>
> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
> "sense making".
>
> Tomasso.
>
>
>
> >> MostAInowadays is about approximation theory, logic and representation..
>
> >> T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Tomasso on 19 Dec 2009 17:31
jmfbahciv wrote:
> Tomasso wrote:
>> zzbunker(a)netscape.net wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>
>> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not
>> application of
>> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
>> discretisation.
>>
>> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models of
>> parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information can
>> stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as "answers to
>> questions worth answering".
>>
>> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
>> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
>> "sense making".
>
> If that sentence is not trivial, would you please edit it so that
> it's readable? Then I'll be able to analyze what your meaning.

(1) Information is a measure of the change in a probability distribution
of a receiver as a results of a sender sending a signal to the receiver.
This is measured in bits, as developed by Shannon and Weaver, and
others.

(2) The probability distribution is specific to a particular belief, and
the probability of it being true (in the sense of agreeing with observation
and being able to make predictions about reality, or in the sense that
the sender intends the receiver to modify a belief).

(2a) In carrying out experiments or observational studies, the concept
of "sender" is extended to carrying out tests or measurements.

(3) The specificity of the probability distribution is about the statuses
for which the receiver held, or holds probabilities, as well as the
probabilities themseves. We can call these statuses a model space,
and the probabilities give likelihoods of particular models being
believed, or true, or useable for prediction, etc.

(4) The notion of framework is the structure of the model space.
This is composed of terms, constraints, and context or semantic
associations with other frameworks. RDF is a part of XML for
defining these (RDF = resource definition framework), and is a
way to denote a model space. It is not the only way, but is one
way.

(5) The notion of importance, or 'questions worth answering' can
be part of a framework, but not in the probabilities in the probability
distribution, but in the surrounding context. This includes the
stances, intentions and motivations of the receiver.

(6) Within this kind of framework, "bits" are about the influence
of the particular incoming signals. This is a lot different operationally
from "bits" when used to characterise parts of bytes and Megabytes,
or in lossy compression, or self-assembling robots, etc.

(7) Within this kind of framework, an incoming signal may result
in not merely changes to probabilities, but a revision of the framework
and the contexts in which it is embedded. Ie, structural changes as
well as simple tweaks of beliefs.

(8) For example, a knowledge representation framework may get
changes, or something which was held to be important may become
unimportant, or uncertainty may increase after a signal is received.
In the latter case, a seismic upheaval of the framework is anticipated,
but may take some time to eventuate.

Feynman famously asked "how do you know that"? His question
required a detailed answer. A second question of this kind is
"what it it that you know"? This is a question about model spaces
and frameworks, and also requires a detailed answer. It is a core
part of AI. Deep down, it is also part of physics.

Tomasso.
From: Tomasso on 19 Dec 2009 17:34
zzbunker(a)netscape.net wrote:
> On Dec 18, 7:51 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>> zzbun...(a)netscape.net wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>>>> "Forthminder" <menti...(a)myuw.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
>>>>> no longer afford. It would be far better to
>>>>> reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
>>>>> and wasted on nuclear physics and create
>>>>> artificial intelligence on supercomputers --
>>>>> another spendy resource that should be taken
>>>>> away from the Dr. Strangeloves of this world
>>>>> and be directed towards what really matters --
>>>>> the coming Technological Singularity.
>>
>>>>> Mentifex
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Mind.html
>>>>> http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
>>>>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html
>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2009/12/nuclear-physics-hi...
>>
>>>> AIis a branch of (mathematical) physics.
>>
>>>> Just think of it as a structural extension of information theory.
>>
>>> Well, that's impossible. Since the only thing theAIidiots
>>> even know about "structure" is "ICs". Which is why the non-idiot
>>> people invented XML and Desktop Publishing rather than transitors
>>> anyway
>>
>> To make it clearer for you:
>>
>> I wrote " structural extension", not "physical extension".
>>
>>> And since the only thing the idiots know about information theory
>>> is IBM
>>> that's why the invented HDTV, mp3, mpeg, Digital Books, USB,
>>> Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
>>> Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock
>>> Wristwatches,
>>> Digital Terrain Mapping, GPS, Data Fusion, Home Broadband, and the
>>> 21st Century.
>>> Rather than idiot stuff like Analytic Continuation anyway.
>>
>> Well no!
>>
>> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not application of
>> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
>> discretisation.
>>
>> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models
>> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
>> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
>> "answers to questions worth answering".
>
> Since information is bits is only information to mathematicians,
> that's why it's called mathematicians, rather than thinking.
>
> Since information in "worth answering" question is only news
> to Philosophers, that's why it's call AI.
> Rather than Engineering, Desktop Publishing, External Emulators,
> Digital Terrain Mapping, Laser Disks, Fiber Optics, The History
> Channel,
> Holographics, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock Wristwatches,
> Rapid Prototyping, or interesting.

Read my response to jmfbahciv.

And stop pretending mathematicians (and others outside your camp) are
narrow-minded.

Tomasso.

>> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
>> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
>> "sense making".
>>
>> Tomasso.
>>
>>>> MostAInowadays is about approximation theory, logic and representation.
>>
>>>> T.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
From: nuny on 19 Dec 2009 21:56
On Dec 18, 4:51 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
> zzbun...(a)netscape.net wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
> >> "Forthminder" <menti...(a)myuw.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
> >>> no longer afford. It would be far better to
> >>> reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
> >>> and wasted on nuclear physics and create
> >>> artificial intelligence on supercomputers --
> >>> another spendy resource that should be taken
> >>> away from the Dr. Strangeloves of this world
> >>> and be directed towards what really matters --
> >>> the coming Technological Singularity.
>
> >>> Mentifex
> >>> --
> >>>http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Mind.html
> >>>http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
> >>>http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html
> >>>http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2009/12/nuclear-physics-hi....
>
> >> AI is a branch of (mathematical) physics.
>
> >> Just think of it as a structural extension of information theory.
>
> >    Well, that's impossible. Since the only thing the AI idiots
> >    even know about "structure" is "ICs". Which is why the non-idiot
> >    people invented XML and Desktop Publishing rather than transitors
> > anyway
>
> To make it clearer for you:
>
> I wrote " structural extension", not "physical extension".
>
> >    And since the only thing the idiots know about information theory
> > is IBM
> >    that's why the invented HDTV, mp3, mpeg, Digital Books, USB,
> > Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
> >    Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock
> > Wristwatches,
> >    Digital Terrain Mapping, GPS, Data Fusion, Home Broadband, and the
> > 21st Century.
> >    Rather than idiot stuff like Analytic Continuation anyway.
>
> Well no!
>
> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not application of
> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
> discretisation.
>
> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models

A reasonable *what*?

> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
> "answers to questions worth answering".
>
> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
> "sense making".
>
> Tomasso.


Mark L. Fergerson
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev:  Gravity vs. Atomic Bonds; at times/places, gravity triumphs.
Next: Herald Story is Absolute Nonsense  Minister