LogicForTV, I had recently just asked why it had to be this complicated ?

Do you really believe that a person should have to read through all kinds of deep technical, or religious crap to understand anything important about life.... And death ???

At least for some things, I believe the answers are so obvious, that some (maybe otherwise very intelligent) people just look right past them, for a more complicated answer.

Fishy1 said:

I think if PGJ's hypothesis was built to essentially say 'Humanities purpose is to create AGI', that would be more palatable.

1.) Did you actually bother to read my hypothesis?

2.) Here's an excerpt from the first page:
"But why is the purpose of *human life* reasonably to create Artificial General Intelligence?

This document is a scientific hypothesis describing why and how *our* purpose or objective as a species, is reasonably to create artificial general intelligence."

TheBlindWatchmaker said:

wow, you actually didn't get the analogy, but then that isn't surprising.

I look forward to you unifying the models in physics with string theory and to see you collect the nobel prize.

I did comprehend the analogy you made, and as a result, I specified that I detect that supersymmetry, or formal methods from supersymmetry, may be applied in machine learning without observation of supersymmetry at the LHC.

Reference: "Discussion about my Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network"

TheBlindWatchmaker said:

- Next, your hypothesis fails in numerous counts as a scientific hypothesis as follows:
a) You offer no predictions
b) You offer no models
c) You offer no tests made
d) You offer no results or data for analysis
e) You show no scientific methodology of how you go from the assumptions from your citations to purpose.

Resolve these and it would be considered, stop churning out the same nonsense like you have on other forums,
You are simply spamming and you clearly have not an ounce of scientific credence.

When making your hypothesis you should have fully investigated the papers you cite that form the core of your thought process,
Real scientists take a hypothesis/equation and so, and scrutinise it to see if it stands up to full critical analysis.

1.) You appear to be confusing my hypothesis with scientific theory!

2.) Perhaps you ought to pay attention to the following line, from Wikipedia/Scientific Hypothesis:

"People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess" because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. However, some scientists reject the term "educated guess" as incorrect. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem."

3.) Thus, as per Wikipedia/Scientific Hypothesis, I detect that my hypothesis is appropriately composed; it is falsifiable, reasonably potentially fruitful, parsimonious, of sufficient initial scope, and conservative, as per paper by Mateos et al, and the paper by Wissner Gross.

4.) Furthermore, to begin, you may analyse whether or not human measure "C" (as described by Mateos et al) pertains to (or is compatible with) the partition regime {X} as underlined in Alex Wissner Gross' paper. (See my relation "C ∈ {X}")

5.) In other words, my hypothesis may be falsified, if the relation C ∈ {X} is false. I posit that such a relation is valid, given the equations cited in my hypothesis. (You clearly failed to observe that said relation of mine is neither in the paper by Gross, nor the paper by Mateos et al!)

6.) Finally, you ought to re-read my hypothesis, while considering for example, this line from Wikipedia/Hypothesis:

"A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question."

Nyarlathotep said:

Continuing my depacking of technical terms for people who don't know them:

Supersymmetry is a conjecture that for every TYPE of particle that exists, there is another TYPE of particle (called a super-partner). For example the super partner of an electron is a selectron (they just put an s in front of the name for fermions superpartners, so the super-partner of a quark is a squark!).

What does this have to do with PGJ posts and AI? Nothing. But it is a cool topic in physics so he just threw it in there for good measure.

On the contrary:

**Part I**:

1.) Machine learning is reasonably inspired by cognitive science/science concerned with the biological brain, and my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network" is inspired by work done in supersymmetry, wrt cognitive science via the biological brain!

1.b) Reference-A: "Supersymmetric methods in the travelling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale."

**Part II**:

1.) The recent SU(n) based model is an improvement over U(n) based models.

2.) I predict SU(M|N) (aka supersymmetry based models), to be an improvement over SU(n) based models (aka special unitary based models, that aren't supersymmetric).

3.) From item (2) above, in addition to Part I, Reference-A, this is where my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network" is relevant.

TinMan said:

*POP*...... "fizzle"...... *puff of smoke*.... Aaaaaand there goes another fuse. *groan* Glad I bought a new pack today.

Indeed

Oh dear it gets worse for PGJ!

So now his what he calls a hypothesis, not only is supported by an unproven paper by Matos Et Al and Ramon Guevarra,
Which the latter has said "hasn't been tested enough" and wouldn't personally call it entropy.

But now he is relying on supersymmetry, Oh here is a little game for everyone to play.

Which theory in physics as completely unproven and has failed every observable test, including at the large hadron collider and has no actual evidence to support it, is it:
a) General Relativity
b) Supersymmetry

*hint* Its not a)

And then you post this, "A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question."

So essentially you admit, you have no scientific hypothesis and that you're essentially asking, "what if".

But yet, We are supposed to accept your quips as being on the whole, reasonable.

Remember, The burden of evidence is on you! Great claims demand extraordinary evidence, And you have failed to meet this standard. You quote mine and rely on theories papers(one in particular that the co-author, says requires more testing) and the unproven supersymmetry, to support a claim that human purpose it to create artificial general intelligence.

And still you offer none of your own independent testing/results/data to confirm the papers(and didn't investigate its possible failures), you've not offered any causal link to how ALL humans are working towards this goal.

Well thanks for wasting everyone's with your unfounded silliness.