[HN Gopher] In the 17th century, Leibniz dreamed of a machine th... ___________________________________________________________________ In the 17th century, Leibniz dreamed of a machine that could calculate ideas Author : malshe Score : 71 points Date : 2021-11-13 14:49 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org) (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org) | lordleft wrote: | > Leibniz's central argument was that all human thoughts, no | matter how complex, are combinations of basic and fundamental | concepts, in much the same way that sentences are combinations of | words, and words combinations of letters. He believed that if he | could find a way to symbolically represent these fundamental | concepts and develop a method by which to combine them logically, | then he would be able to generate new thoughts on demand. | | To what extent did Leibniz impact Frege and the other architects | of analytic philosophy? Isn't Begriffsschrift a similar project? | ronenlh wrote: | Yes, I first read about Leibniz's machine from the wikipedia | page on the Entscheidungsproblem. | | The research on this problem eventually led to the invention of | Lambda calculus and the Turing machine (formal languages for | computing), which proved that such a project is impossible, as | on some inputs they infinitely recurse and can't output True or | False. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem | | The source is Martin Davis, 2000, Engines of Logic | hyperpallium2 wrote: | We take boolean logic for granted, yet Bool's Laws of Thought do | a pretty astonishing job of expressing ideas, though at the same | time are so far. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laws_of_Thought | agumonkey wrote: | Also a direct link to shannon use of binary logic | poundofshrimp wrote: | (2019) | malshe wrote: | Thanks. I didn't see that while posting | brundolf wrote: | I kept assembling points I wanted to make in the comments, and | then the article would cover them itself, so I'll just quote it: | | > He imagined that this machine, which he called "the great | instrument of reason," would be able to answer all questions and | resolve all intellectual debate. "When there are disputes among | persons," he wrote, "we can simply say, 'Let us calculate,' and | without further ado, see who is right." | | > But as today's data scientists devise ever-better algorithms | for natural language processing, they're having debates that echo | the ideas of Leibniz and Swift: Even if you can create a formal | system to generate human-seeming language, can you give it the | ability to understand what it's saying? | | This is the important part. Having the naivete to assume that a | flawed mechanical system represents the whole of Truth, is worse | than having no system at all. | mdp2021 wrote: | > _Having the naivete_ | | Regulative ideals do not constitute a claim of achieved | solution. Approximation of an ideal result is already an | achievement. | Banana699 wrote: | > flawed mechanical system | | I don't like what "mechanical" is implying here, it gives the | impression that humans have weird magic in their head that | makes them understand language or search for truth (whatever | approximate version they like anyway). | | It's just a flawed system, period. Your brain circuits are a | flawed system, and the artifacts produced by the data science | craze are flawed. They are not flawed equally, but they are all | physical infromation processing systems trying to make sense of | the weird jumble of signals coming to it from Outside. | inafewwords wrote: | Humans have a bit of irrationality that is based on their | different POVs and experience. So the magic system is just | that we have dynamic value systems. Shared culture through | interconnected internet is making this less of a problem as | the dynamic range is getting smaller or narrow enough to | categorize | brundolf wrote: | The problem comes with rigidity and certainty. Using a flawed | system with the acknowledgement that it's flawed is well and | good. But "mechanical" components like hard data and logic | often give the _illusion_ of being flawless and true in some | absolute way. That doesn 't make them useless, but it means | you have to work extra hard to keep in mind the fact that | they are and always will be imperfect. | yawboakye wrote: | > Your brain circuits are a flawed system | | What a roundabout way to admit limitation both in knowledge | and tools to investigate them. Except this one is more | sinister because it almost closes the curtain on approaching | this natural order (of brain circuitry) with both humility | and curiosity. | Banana699 wrote: | >What a roundabout way to admit limitation both in | knowledge and tools to investigate them. | | Why? I view humans (and all biological beings really) as | machines, fantastic contraptions of unimaginable complexity | that push the materials they are made of to the absoulute | limits. Their brains are the pattern-matching subsystem | responsible for Command, Control and Communcications. Maybe | expressing limitations in terms of circuits is roundabout | to you, but it's perfectly natural for me. | | >it almost closes the curtain on approaching this natural | order (of brain circuitry) with both humility and curiosity | | Again, why? is it because "Circuits" somehow imply rigidity | or fixity ? that's not true at all, plenty of circuits can | change their structure while they're operating. And even | fixed circuits can be so complex and of so many signal | paths that they seem to have a mind of their own, | especially in a dynamic changing enviroment. | | I don't know about humility*, but the two grandfathers of | neural networks, McCulloch and Pitts, were both very | curious about the brain, and they used ideas from logic and | cybernetics to study it. The Nobel-prize-winning Hodgkin- | Huxley model is another framework that looks at the | activity inside a neuron in circuit-theoritic terms such as | capacitors and current sources. | | * : That said, "All of your views and opinions are the | product of a few billion capacitors wired together" seems | to me like a pretty humble way to go through life. | jmkr wrote: | Leibniz is definitely an interesting person. I studied about him | in philosophy, but in grad school I focused more on his | contribution to the ideas of computers. Leibniz and Pascal is a | good starting point in history. | joethrow29292 wrote: | What about the other 4 billion years? | pier25 wrote: | Leibniz was inspired by Ramon Llull, a 13th century | philospher/mystic/poet from Mallorca. | | https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/let-us-calculate-leibni... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull | swayvil wrote: | It suggests that thought is not necessarily _generative_. That we | are not generating ideas. That my ideas are not created out of my | head. | | An alternative model is that thought is performed by the | manipulation of references. References to an _idea landscape_. | Anybody who writes software is familiar. | | (Sequences and hierarchies of idea-references give us complex | ideas) | | > Leibniz's central argument was that all human thoughts, no | matter how complex, are combinations of basic and fundamental | concepts, in much the same way that sentences are combinations of | words, and words combinations of letters. | nathias wrote: | Leibniz invented the modern world as a side project. Computer | science, relativity, nuclear physics can all be traced to him. | whatshisface wrote: | You can say that about almost any mathematician in history. | nathias wrote: | You really can't. | kwhitefoot wrote: | Relativity was one of Galileo's contributions, earlier than | Leibnitz: 1632 in his 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World | Systems'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance | Banana699 wrote: | >relativity, nuclear physics | | Are those just there because of calculus? that's doubly unfair | if so. Unfair beacuse there is a huge amount of work that went | into those besides simply calculus, and unfair for all those | who contributed to calculus before him. | | Frankly, I wouldn't even attribute CS to him, he did have a | mechanistic view of logic, but that alone doesn't strike me as | revolutionary, it was the age of mechanical machines after all, | somebody was bound to apply the idea to symbolic manipualation. | CS's father on the engineering side is Babbage, it's father on | the mathematics side is Russel or Turing. | zosima wrote: | Leibniz was born one and a half century before Babbage and | nearly two and a half century before Russel and Turing. | | To compare them is immensely unfair to Leibniz and completely | ignores how visionary and far ahead of his time he actually | was. | nathias wrote: | Everything you assume is false. I'm refering to the fact he | came up with the modern concept now known as energy, which he | called vis viva. Why are you making things up, he didn't have | a mechanistic view of logic, he invented the concept of | possible worlds, but for CS what is important is his side | project of charachteristica universalis and his introduction | of binary formalization. | Banana699 wrote: | >he came up with the modern concept now known as energy, | which he called vis viva | | I forgot that, but crediting relativity and nuclear physics | to Conservation Of Energy still feels like a big stretch to | me. Maybe Thermodynamics. | | >he didn't have a mechanistic view of logic, he invented | the concept of possible worlds | | I'm not sure I understand why those two things contradict | each other. He envisioned a machine doing reasoning, that's | a "mechanistic view of logic" in my book. How is possible | worlds related to that and why are they in tension in your | opinion ? | | >charachteristica universalis and his introduction of | binary formalization | | Fair enough, those two things are fairly radical for his | time and very CSy. But neither is original to him, his | charachteristica universalis is based on a misunderstanding | of chinese ideographs, and there were people contemporary | to him like John Wilkins who worked on very similar things | ('philosophical languages'), the idea was in the air at the | time. | | The binary numerals were also inspired by certain chinese | texts, and some claim[1] that he plagiarised them outright | from contemporaries. All said and done though, I don't | think binary numbers are that important or fundamental to | computers, only the idea that numbers (and abstract ideas | in general) can be operated on purely syntactically without | the slightest clue as to their meaning, and still yield | useful results; This is an idea much older than Leibniz. | Also Babbage managed to design a perfectly good computer on | base-10, and binary was just one system among many in the | 1940s. | | [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314485403_Who_D | isco... | nathias wrote: | The paper you link is like garbage, there are plenty of | resourcces that are intellectually honest. Leibniz did | take binary form I Ching, where it was used to formalize | bones thrown on turtle shells for fortune telling, to | consider this 'plagiarism' is idiotic. | lostmsu wrote: | The mathematics side of CS would be Godel probably. | yawboakye wrote: | The mathematics of CS is mainly logic, for which Godel | isn't essentially the leading light. Very important | theories he contributed, but they don't necessarily define | logic. I'd be more inclined to attribute to Russell or any | of his influencers (like Frege). | bopbeepboop wrote: | CS would undoubtedly be John von Neumann. | [deleted] | KhoomeiK wrote: | > if he could find a way to symbolically represent these | fundamental concepts and develop a method by which to combine | them logically, then he would be able to generate new thoughts on | demand | | Reminds me of some recent neurosymbolic work, like "DreamCoder: | Growing generalizable, interpretable knowledge with wake-sleep | Bayesian program learning" [1] | | [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08381 | narag wrote: | I can't wait for Apple TV to make a Leibniz biopic series as they | did with Asimov's Foundation. | | It would be so interesting watching her developing Calculus, | thanks to her sightseeing powers while working for the emperor. | Rebelgecko wrote: | Maybe they'll just pick up the rights to Stephenson's Baroque | Cycle | InTheArena wrote: | It's amazing that no one has done this yet. | | Just get Johnny Depp to play Jack Shaftoe. | Rebelgecko wrote: | If Snow Crash ever makes it out of development hell, I | think it becomes more likely | usrusr wrote: | But would Johnny Depp still be willing to reprise his role of | syphillitic Jack? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-13 23:01 UTC)