[ExI] Some new angle about AI

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/12/31 scerir <scerir at libero.it>:
> [Stathis]
> We can compute probabilistic answers, often with high certainty, where true
> randomness is evolved (eg. I predict that I won't quantum tunnel to the other
> side of the Earth), or we can use pseudorandom number generators. I don't think
> anyone has shown a situation where true random can be distinguished from
> pseudorandom, but even if that should be a stumbling block in simulating a
> brain, it would be possible to bypass it by including a true random source,
> such as radioactive decay, in the machine.
>
> #
>
> To my knowledge there are:
> -pseudo-randomness, which is computable and deterministic; specific softwares
> are the sources.
> -quantum randomness, which is uncomputable (not by definition, but because of
> theorems; no Turing machine can enumerate an infinity of correct bits of the
> sequence produced by a quantum device); there are several sources (radioactive
> decays; arrival times; beam splitters; metastable states decay; etc.)
> -algorithmic randomness, which is uncomputable (I would say by definition).

There is a way to produce algorithmic randomness with a Turing
machine, requiring something of a trick. The Turing machine runs a
program which generates a virtual world containing an observer, and
the observer has a piece of paper with a bitstring written on it. At
regular intervals the program duplicates the entire virtual world
including the observer, but in one copy appends 1 to the bitstring and
in the other appends 0. From the point of view of the observer,
whether the next bit will be a 1 or a 0 is indeterminate, and the
bitstring he has so far truly random. This is despite the fact that
the program is completely deterministic from the perspective of an
outside observer. It will be obvious that this is a model of quantum
randomness under the MWI of QM: God does not play dice, but his
creatures do.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou