Re: Implausibility continued (in C)

On 18 Sep, 11:15, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:33:27 -0700, someone3 wrote:
On 18 Sep, 04:24, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:35:57 -0700, someone3 wrote:
No the behaviour of the computer when it runs the program is not
unexplained. As I said in the piece you snipped:

Then explain it.

---------------
As said, at one iteration per second, we could predict 10 minutes
ahead (600 steps) for example,

Show me how.

given our knowledge of how the program
works. The understanding (the communication of which is the
explanation) isn't specific for the 10 minute time frame, but is
the same that will allow a prediction for 30 minutes, a year etc. Are
you suggesting, that if you can make predictions in terms of a certain
amount of time ahead, even though these predictions are 100% accurate,
that you don't regard them as demonstrating an ability to predict
based on the explanation of how the thing works?

You've haven't shown how to make predictions yet.

If you did, these predictions don't address whether or not the program
halts.

If you did, these predictions don't address how many 1s are written to the
tape.

If you did, these predictions don't address the total amount of tape used.

You seem to think you have a very good understanding of this program. I
wish you'd tell me how you arrived at it.

---------------

It would be useful if you didn't snip and avoid answering the
question, as it might clear up why you don't consider the program
explainable.

Agreed. You'll tell me then how to train your ANN?

Also out of curiousity do you consider the behaviour of a computer
running the program I supplied unexplainable?

Is /dev/random unexplainable? That will give you your answer.

Regarding making the predictions on what will happen when the computer
runs the program you supplied, they would be made simply stepping
through code, for the given number of iterations.

Really? I'm not clear on how stepping through the code allows you to make
any predictions for the several phenomena I'm interested in. But I think
we can move on.

You didn't answer
the question "are you suggesting, that if you can make predictions in
terms of a certain amount of time ahead, even though these predictions
are 100% accurate, that you don't regard them as demonstrating an
ability to predict based on the explanation of how the thing works?"

If I can make a 100% correct prediction n steps ahead, then I know if the
program has stopped before n steps or is still running.

Say I can make n very, very large.

This does not let me distinguish between a program that will stop at n+1
and a program that's looping. Thus, the program is not fully explained.

You can take the random number in the program I supplied to be psuedo
random, so was the behaviour of the program I supplied unexplainable?

Well, on my machine, the pseudo-random number generator has an entropy
pool that is modified by activities such as mouse movements, time between
keystrokes, and network packet arrivals. Since I don't choose to model
all of these things, for my purposes the program is not fully explained.

Once we clear this up, I'll be happy to supply links on ANN's regarding
the training of them.

I know how to train ANNs. I don't know what your fitness function is.
Could you provide a link to that?


You still didn't answer where I said:
--------------
You didn't answer the question "are you suggesting, that if you can
make predictions in terms of a certain amount of time ahead, even
though these predictions are 100% accurate, that you don't regard them
as demonstrating an ability to predict based on the explanation of how
the thing works?"
---------------

All you said is, that if you only predicted n steps ahead, you
wouldn't have predicted what happened at step n+1, which I agree with,
it's obvious, but I don't see how it is an answer to the question
above. You have stated earlier that an explanation has to be able to
predict (I don't agree, but can come onto that later, in my opinion
retrospectively explaining why what happened happened would suffice,
as in the random number example I gave). Are you suggeting that being
able to forecast n steps ahead isn't a prediction?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>If you subscribe to the idea that observations are the only reality, ... > explanation into the prediction? ... > it is, demonstrates nothing as the physicality, or as you would say, the reality of time. ... > quantification and predictions and the like, and then in order to assure that the graph ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>If you subscribe to the idea that observations are the only reality, ... > explanation into the prediction? ... > it is, demonstrates nothing as the physicality, or as you would say, the reality of time. ... > quantification and predictions and the like, and then in order to assure that the graph ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>If you subscribe to the idea that observations are the only reality, ... > explanation into the prediction? ... > it is, demonstrates nothing as the physicality, or as you would say, the reality of time. ... > quantification and predictions and the like, and then in order to assure that the graph ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Implausibility continued (in C)
    ... As said, at one iteration per second, we could predict 10 minutes ... explanation) isn't specific for the 10 minute time frame, ... that if you can make predictions in terms of a certain ... going to do up to n moves ahead, as it can be forecast. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility continued (in C)
    ... As said, at one iteration per second, we could predict 10 ... ahead, even though these predictions are 100% accurate, ... predict based on the explanation of how the thing works? ... going to do up to n moves ahead, as it can be forecast. ...
    (talk.origins)