I see in which case my argument fails:
If we assume a prexisting algorithm for the universe already (which most people here seem to do), then everything else could be derived from that, including all axioms of natural numbers, since we assume the algorithm to be more powerful then them at the start. Step b) is simply postulated to be already fulfilled, with the algorithm just being there (and "just being there" is not an algorithm), so that we already have an algorithm to start with (the laws of nature).
The "laws of nature" simply have to be taken as granted. There is nothing deeper than that. The problem is that then we face... (read more)
I am not necessarily an atheist, it depends on your definition of God. I reject all relgious conceptions of God, but accept God as a name for the mysterious source of all order, intelligence and meaning, or as existence itself.
So in this sense, God is the uncaused cause and also everything caused.
It would indeed be a counterargument if I didn't believe in uncaused cause, but I do believe in an uncaused cause, even though it isn't a seperate entity like the usual notion of God implies.
I agree. That's why is say "this algorithm doesn't solve any problem", it isn't in a problem solving algorithm in the sense I used in my post. Any "just go through all XYZ" doesn't solve my stated problem, because it doesn't select the actual useful solution.
Better algorithms maybe are known to exist, but these itself can't ultimately be selected by an algorithm, as you would have an infinite regress of picking algorithms then.
Generating all possible programs doesn't solve anything, since we still have to select a program that we actually use to solve a particular problem, also the algorithm to generate all possible algorithms itself cannot be algorithmically determined. So what you say doesn't refute my point at all.
Interesting reply! The solution is to terminate the chain of determination with a non-algorithm that is fundamentally indeterminate, which quantum mechanics already hints at.
I don't know that. I am not claiming to "know" any of what I write here. I don't think it is knowable. I just write about what is obvious to me. This doesn't amount to knowledge, though.
In theory it could be possible that there is an algorithm, even though noone showed this. I doubt it, though. In any case, there would be some non-algorithmical way to arrive at this algorithm, which just shifts the mystery from humans to something else.
Actually it seems that you could describe everything that happens in terms of an algorithm. The simplest possibility is to just describe what happens in a string and let the algorithm output that. This doesn't imply, though, that this is what makes things happen. But even then, this algorithm still couldn't be derived from algorithms alone.
Sorry, it seems you are just presuming computationalism. The question is not "Why would it not be algorithmic?" but "Why would it be algorithmic?", considering that as you say for yourself, from your perspective no algorithm is visible.
The algorithm you wrote down is a nice metaphor, but not in any way an algorithm in the way computer science means it. Since we talk about AI, I am only refering to the use of algorithm in the sense of "precisely formalizable procedure" as in computer science.
You didn't really respond to my argument. You just said: "It's all algorithmic, basta.". The problem is that there is no algorithmic way to determine any algorithm, since if you try to find an algorithm for the algorithm you only have a bigger problem of determining that algorithm. The universe can't run solely on algorithms, except if you invoke "God did it! He created the first algorithm" or "The first algorithm just appered randomly out of nowhere". I think this statement is ridiculous, but there is no refutation for dogma. If the universe would be so absurd, I could as well be a christian fundamentalist or just randomly do nonsensical things (since... (read 546 more words →)
You never quite state the alternative to an algorithm. I propose that the only alternative is randomness.
The alternative to algorithms are non-formalizable processes. Obviously I can't give a precise definition or example of one, since in this case we would have an algorithm again.
The best example I can give is the following: Assume that the universe works precisely according to laws (I don't think so, but let's assume it). What determines the laws? Another law? If so, you get an infinite regress of laws, and you don't have a law to determine this, either. So according to you, the laws of the universe are random. I think this hardly plausible.
... (read more)I'm curious as to
What I write here may be quite simple (and I am certainly not the first to write about it), but I still think it is worth considering:
Say we have an abitrary problem that we assume has an algorithmic solution, and search for the solution of the problem.
How can the algorithm be determined?
Either:
a) Through another algorithm that exist prior to that algorithm.
b) OR: Through something non-algorithmic.
In the case of AI, the only solution is a), since there is nothing else but algorithms at its disposal. But then we have the problem to determine the algorithm the AI uses to find the solution, and then it would have to determine the algorithm to determine... (read 568 more words →)
My argument still holds in another form, though. Even if we assume the universe has a preexisting algorithm that just unfolds, we don't know which it is. So we can't determine the best seed AI from that either, effectively we still have to start from b). Unless we get the best seed AI by accident (which seems unlikely to me) there will be room for a better seed AI which can only determined if we start with a totally new algorithm (which the original seed AI is unable to, since then it would have to delete itself). We, having the benefit of not knowing our algorithm, can built a better seed AI which... (read more)