cousin_it comments on The Problem with AIXI - Less Wrong

24 Post author: RobbBB 18 March 2014 01:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 12 March 2014 03:03:22PM *  1 point [-]

The diagonal lemma and the existence of quines already show that you don't need specific support for self-reference in your language, because any sufficiently powerful language can formulate self-referential statements. In fact, UDT uses a quined description of itself, like in your proposal.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 March 2014 05:21:02PM 1 point [-]

The diagonal lemma and the existence of quines already show that you don't need specific support for self-reference in your language, because any sufficiently powerful language can formulate self-referential statements.

In formal language terms, it would be more accurate to say that any sufficiently powerful (ie: recursively enumerable, Turing recognizable, etc) language must contain some means of producing direct self-references. The existence of the \mu node in the syntax tree isn't necessarily intuitive, but its existence is a solid fact of formal-language theory. Without it, you can only express pushdown automata, not Turing machines.

But self-referencing data structures within a single Turing machine tape are not formally equivalent to self-referencing Turing machines, nor to being able to learn how to detect and locate a self-reference in a universe being modelled as a computation.

In fact, UDT uses a quined description of itself, like in your proposal.

I did see someone proposing a UDT attack on naturalized induction on this page.