It would also interesting to note that the program can't run and optimise itself simultaneously. Probably it need to copy its source code, edit it, than terminate itself and start the new code. Or edit only subagent which is not in use in current moment.

the program can't run and optimise itself simultaneously

I think, the hot updating is to consider as well.

To be fair, it seems that recently almost everyone can speak before a some kind of UN panel.

Which is good. The last thing I want is the UN to mess with AI. So, if it is just another UN panel, I don't have to worry.

I have an intuition that if we implemented universal basic income, the prices of necessities would rise to the point where people without other sources of income would still be in poverty. I assume there are UBI supporters who've spent more time thinking about that question than I have, and I'm interested in their responses.

(I have some thoughts myself on the general directions responses might take, but I haven't fleshed them out, and I might not care enough to do so.)

I have an intuition that if we implemented universal basic income, the prices of necessities would rise to the point where people without other sources of income would still be in poverty.

I think you are right.

Yes. It's not the Choice axiom which is problematic, but the infinity itself. So it doesn't mater if ZF or ZFC.

I doubt that any proof in FAI will use infinitary methods.

Physics is only good, when you expel all the infinities out of it.

Even more so for a subset of physics, such as FAI or molecular dynamics or something.

Well, some of us think that this should be applied to the mathematics itself.

Wildberger's complaints are well known, and frankly not taking very seriously. The most positive thing one can say about it is that some of the ideas in his rational trignometry do have some interesting math behind them, but that's it. Pretty much no mathematican who has listened to what he has to say have taken any of it seriously.

Sure, I know he is not taken very seriously. That is his own point, too.

In the time of Carl Sagan, in the year 1986 or so, I became an anti Saganist. I realized that his million civilization in our galaxy alone is an utter bullshit. Most likely only one exists.

Every single astro-biologist or biologist would have said to a dissident like myself - you don't understand evolution, sire, it's mandatory!

20 years later, on this site, Rare Earth is a dominant position. Or at least - no aliens position.

On the National Geographic channel and elsewhere, you still listen "how previously unexpected number of Earth like planets will be detected".

I am not afraid of mathematicians more than of astrobiologists. Largely unimpressed.

This question presupposes that the task will ever be done Sure. It's called super-tasks.

From mathematics we know that not all sequences converge. So the sequence of distributions that you gave, or my example of the sequence 0,1,2,3,4,... both don't converge. Calling them a supertask doesn't change that fact.

What mathematicians often do in such cases is to define a new object to denote the hypothetical value at the end of sequence. This is how you end up with real numbers, distributions (generalized functions), etc. To be fully formal you would have to keep track of the sequence itself, which for real numbers gives you Cauchy sequences for instance. In most cases these objects behave a lot like the elements of the sequence, so real numbers are a lot like rational numbers. But not always, and sometimes there is some weirdness.

From the wikipedia link:

In philosophy, a supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time.

This refers to something called "time". Most of mathematics, ZFC included, has no notion of time. Now, you could take a variable, and call it time. And you can say that a given countably infinite sequences "takes place" in finite "time". But that is just you putting semantics on this sequence and this variable.

So the sequence of distributions that you gave, or my example of the sequence 0,1,2,3,4,... both don't converge. Calling them a supertask doesn't change that fact.

I don't understand you.

What can one expect after this super-task is done to see?

This question presupposes that the task will ever be done. Since, if I understand correctly, you are doing an infinite number of swaps, you will never be done.

You could similarly define a super-task (whatever that is) of adding 1 to a number. Start with 0, at time 0 add 1, add one more at time 0.5, and again at 0.75. What is the value when you are done? Clearly you are counting to infinity, so even though you started with a natural number, you don't end up with one. That is because you don't "end up" at all.

This question presupposes that the task will ever be done

Sure. It's called super-tasks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask

"a supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time."

You can't avoid supertasks, when you endorse infinity.

Therefore, I don't.

The limit of your distributions is not a distribution so there's no problem.

If there's any sort of inconsistency in ZF or PA or any other major system currently in use, it will be much harder to find than this. At a meta level, if there were this basic a problem, don't you think it would have already been noticed?

What can one expect after this super-task is done to see?

Nothing?

At a meta level, if there were this basic a problem, don't you think it would have already been noticed?

It has been noticed, but never resolved properly. A consensus among top mathematicians, that everything is/must be okay prevails.

One dissident.

Why do you believe that? And do you also believe that ZF is inconsistent?

Yes. It's not the Choice axiom which is problematic, but the infinity itself. So it doesn't mater if ZF or ZFC.

Why do I believe this? It's known for some time now, that you can't have an uniform probability distribution over the set of all naturals. That would be an express road to paradoxes.

The problem is, that even if you have a probability distribution where P(0)=0.5, P(1)=0.25, P(2)=0.125 and so on ... you can then invite a super-task of swapping two random naturals (using this distribution) at the time 0. Then the next swapping at 0.5. Then the next swapping at 0.75 ... and so on.

The question is, what is the probability that 0 will remain in its place? It can't be more than 0, after the completion of the super-task after just a second. On the other hand, for every other number, that probability of being on the leftmost position is also zero.

We apparently can construct an uniform distribution over the naturals. Which is bad.

View more: Next

The idea, that both slits, the electrons, the detector and everything else near the experiment are influencing the outcome of the result - looks very good to me.