Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The real difference between AZ (or evolving life) and the tornado>747 is pre-existence of the algorithm (or DNA)....Almost everyone answering has responded with telos as the difference....
The real difference between AZ (or evolving life) and the tornado>747 is pre-existence of the algorithm (or DNA).
What about the 2nd half of my post.This seasm to be a composite answer of the type "the rules was given" and "AlphaZero is not analogues to evolution".
Please, see post #86 for a reply to "the rules was given" and post #136 for a reply to "AlphaZero is not analogues to evolution". To understand what my question is about please see post #140.
we know that nature cant evolve since there is no st epwise way to evolve nature. if we will start with a self replicating molecule we will not get a self replicating walking creature\robot after millions of years.
What about the 2nd half of my post.
Wasnt that part directed right at the your OP question - basically agreeing with you?
#141, here's the whole thing:Can you please provide with a link or the number to that post so I can have a look at it again.
What about the 2nd half of my post.
Wasnt that part directed right at the your OP question - basically agreeing with you?
Didnt the algorithm tell AZ how to do exactly that?
So AZ moves a knight in a straight line. Then what happens?...In principle the rules, which are patterns in themselves, can still be discover by just observing the effect from its own actions (and this is actually what happen in some research AI-robots - and in babies which e.g. loves to explore the effect of gravity, i.e. drops stuff on the floor to every parents annoyance).
it use Monte Carlo Tree Search (analogues to evolution), i.e. it was told to do it with random trials (analogues to mutations) and errors (analogues to selection) - see post #136.
So AZ moves a knight in a straight line. Then what happens?
In #136 you say This is why the rule must be give as minimum knowledge.See post #136 for an answer. If something is unclear, please ask.
This is a straw man.So AZ moves a knight in a straight line. Then what happens?
We have a contradiction here.
I see what youre getting at. But it doesnt help at all when you say things like "This is why the rule must be give as minimum knowledge".... and then you go on to propose that its NOT necessary that rules are known.That is a straw man.
In essence the chess board is the analogues to an universe. AlphaZero exists in this universe. This univers has a set of natural laws which cannot be broken under any circumstance. The laws are the rules of chess.
E.g. this means AlphaZero is not allowed to make an arrbitrary number of moves in one turn but are restricted to one move each turn. This is a rule that need to be enforced, otherwise AlhpaZero will figure out that the best way to win is just to make sufficient enough move in the first turn to win, but how will AlphaZero even know it won if there is no rule telling what the winning condition is? I.e. we don't not play chess any more but are dealing with chaos. To avoid chaos we need to impose order. Order is imposed by rules.
Any system which pretend to do something meaningful must enforce rules. But rules cannot be enforced unless they are known. This is why rules must be give as domain knowledge, but that does not imply AlhpaZero has to know the rules. It is sufficient for AlphaZero to just observe the consequences of it own actions, i.e. observe the effect of the rules in order to learn to play chess. But with no rules given, i.e. no order imposes, there is no chance that anything at all will, or can, be learned because design, i.e. learning, is virtually impossible to emerge from chaos. Design needs order to emerge.
You can at most achieve order, but not design. From order you can then create design. However, just because A implies B and B implies C does not mean A implies C, i.e. you cannot just assume the transitive law is true for every relation, that is you are not entitled to just skip one phase in how design can be achieved without actually showing this to be the case. And to my knowledge nobody has done that yet.
Feel free to disagree. That is the best way to straighten out once own thoughts.
You can claim that, but it does not make your claim true.
Beside the non sequitur, chaos and chaotic system is not the same thing. A chaotic system is simply put a nonlinear system. Nonlinear system posses order, i.e. the trajectory of the system. Here is an example of a chaotic trajectory:
Does the picture above look like the picture below to you?
A chaotic system is not the same as chaos, in fact chaos is not a system at all because it is random - which is the complete opposite to a system.
I suspect you are not clear on the definitions of things and therefore you make incorrect conclusion. I suspect the reason a tornado emerge is because of the order which exists in a weather system, i.e. it is the order in chaotic system which gives rise to design not the randomness in the chaotic regions.
And yes, if you think cloud looks designed, then we definitely mean different things with design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?