The #master #equation = us. #easy. https://t.co/5aoDkD4roV
— Nobody Needs (@InfoNobodyNeeds) February 7, 2016
I read a book called “The Master Equation”. Ok, I glanced through it for the main points and came to this chart within which summarizes the whole book in a little graphic.
It’s really a spectacular little graphic and points to a “something” in the middle that, if ONLY we could puzzle it out, we’d have it made.
But here’s the thing: -We- are the master equation.
Who is puzzling it out by which method? We are.
Here’s the fields he shows:
Analogizers [that’s me. Metaphors/Analogies]
Bayesians [probabilities]
Evolutionaries [think Dawkins – he makes EVERYTHING into Evolution but that makes sense because of his field – it colors the lens he sees the world with… and why he sounds ridiculous sometimes when he steps out of his field (my opinion)
Connectionists [think neural networks… think “singularity”]
Symbolists [Think first generation AI, Chomsky]
Now he’s correct that they’re all leading to a mysterious ‘something’ that will tie it all together and that -if- we find that formula, we’ll have it made.
But, we have the formula. It’s the combination of the systems with the environments working in tandem and we’re a part of that process because these are HUMAN systems created by humans for human consumption.
Even if we create artificial independent life, which we already do in some primitive, skeletal form with any device that operates without our intervention, the “master equation” must be uncertainty and our willingness to accept such uncertainties.
If we are able to perceive every part of a process and have an ongoing overview knowledge of all parts of a system, we’ll not be in the center of the equation.
We want CERTAINTY. The author wants CERTAINTY.
But you don’t GET certainty with autonomous beings because now they’re predictable. If you can predict it, it’s not autonomous.
If there is an equation – a formula – an algorithm that can pull it all together allowing us to make models to be able to duplicate exact function, then we have another machine whose behaviors can be predicted and not the ‘master equation’.
But a master equation with uncertainty will not be satisfying to humans.
We’re the master equation. We have to let go of some control and ability to predict within our systems but upon doing so, we don’t have the master equation intended by the author.
via Twitter https://twitter.com/InfoNobodyNeeds
February 07, 2016 at 03:24PM