rules and laws

Rules and Laws

Words definition in my description:

RULES are referred to as a property of regularity made or formed in a system and LAWS as a property of regularity natural.

Laws are natural relationship of phenomena between causes and results.
Rules can be both common and individual, but laws can not be individual.
A rule can include laws, but a law can not include a rule.
A rule can be changed, but a law can never. What we can do to a law is to control the conditions that the law needs to work.
Both rules and laws are concrete, precise and programmable.
A law can be translated, not changed, into a rule with, if any, other laws and rules to form a new rule.
Any laws that have been combined with a rule are parts of the rule.
A law works whenever the conditions are due, no matter whether it has been planned or not.
Some laws can accompany the rule in an automation system if they are not or not necessarily included in the rule, since everything in the universe goes with certain laws. These laws are not rules, although they may work under certain conditions.
Any rules that go away from laws are called absurdity.

Suppose a non-life automation system can find laws by experiencing or learning, It has to introduce the new law into its rule to form a new rule of its own without choosing other rules. Thus we have problems:

How does the system know that its experience embodies a new law or whether it is useful or not? So we must have given it a general rule beforehand to confine its purposes, however it is like a programming for a computer.
How does the system combine the new law with its existing rule to upgrade itself. The system must use its own rule to do it, otherwise it goes to the antinomy of rules, i.e. to choose rules.
Do any non-life systems have their own purposes to reach? What are their own purposes and how do the purposes come? If we humans assign the purposes to them, they will become something like computers.
When a non-life system has found laws from experience and received rules from other systems, how can it judge and translate them without choosing other rules? Does it just insert them indiscriminately in its existing rule? How does it sort or filter all inputs to choose useful information? Are the inputs precisely specified in the rule like a computer?
How does a non-life system learn laws and other rules without choosing other rules? Only the system gain an ability that has not been programmed, can we think it can learn, otherwise it is a simulation of learning or an “act-as-if” of learning.
Is there a possibility that a non-life or non-AL system can form or procure the ability to choose rules by learning, even if it can learn, laws and other rules only? If it could, there would be at least a law or a rule that can help choose rules. Unfortunately, there are no such laws and rules that can tell anybody how to choose rules or help choose rules. If there were a rule that can help choose rules, it could help itself choose rules.
If a non-life or non-AL system does not use rules to upgrade itself, what else does it use? Intelligence is a concept in human minds. Humans define and describe intelligence with the rules of themselves and rules they know and use. Humans can never describe "the behaviors of intelligence" of an out-of-order system they believe.
I would say that only if a system that is not in the antinomy of rules, can it have intelligence indeed. This kind of systems exists only in life or future artificial high life, so that intelligence is a part or a subsystem of such systems.

Back

Home

Laws are natural relationship of phenomena between causes and results.

Rules can be both common and individual, but laws can not be individual.

A rule can include laws, but a law can not include a rule.

A rule can be changed, but a law can never. What we can do to a law is to control the conditions that the law needs to work.

Both rules and laws are concrete, precise and programmable.

A law can be translated, not changed, into a rule with, if any, other laws and rules to form a new rule.

Any laws that have been combined with a rule are parts of the rule.

A law works whenever the conditions are due, no matter whether it has been planned or not.

Some laws can accompany the rule in an automation system if they are not or not necessarily included in the rule, since everything in the universe goes with certain laws. These laws are not rules, although they may work under certain conditions.

Any rules that go away from laws are called absurdity.

Suppose a non-life automation system can find laws by experiencing or learning, It has to introduce the new law into its rule to form a new rule of its own without choosing other rules. Thus we have problems:

How does the system know that its experience embodies a new law or whether it is useful or not? So we must have given it a general rule beforehand to confine its purposes, however it is like a programming for a computer.

How does the system combine the new law with its existing rule to upgrade itself. The system must use its own rule to do it, otherwise it goes to the antinomy of rules, i.e. to choose rules.

Do any non-life systems have their own purposes to reach? What are their own purposes and how do the purposes come? If we humans assign the purposes to them, they will become something like computers.

How does a non-life system learn laws and other rules without choosing other rules? Only the system gain an ability that has not been programmed, can we think it can learn, otherwise it is a simulation of learning or an “act-as-if” of learning.

I would say that only if a system that is not in the antinomy of rules, can it have intelligence indeed. This kind of systems exists only in life or future artificial high life, so that intelligence is a part or a subsystem of such systems.