flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > our 3D space

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Hence you don't study it in its "entirety", but only on "the big picture"... it is like knowing the summary of a book, not the ENTIRE book word-by-word. I don't care if you care about that or not, or if it's useful or not, it's simply what I was talking about.

As for the rest, obviously, extrapolation solves most of it. But again, you don't know it in its "entirety", just the "summary" of those micro-mechanisms. Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Feb 2010, 16:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
but only on "the big picture"... it is like knowing the summary of a book
[...]
As for the rest, obviously, extrapolation solves most of it.

That's where you're wrong. The whole matter is not about extrapolating (generalizing individual cases) but studying the entire subject as a system, i.e. as the sum of its individual bits/atoms.

It should be scientifically and technologically possible to study every atom of a nerve, but not only would it be a huge waste of resources, but it would also be practically useless, since individual atoms mean nothing. It is an exercise in futility.
Only in their macro-level construction/structure (i.e. as cells, then as organs) do these have any meaningful and scientifically pertinent mechanism.

Borsuc wrote:

I don't care [...] if it's useful or not, it's simply what I was talking about.

Oh, we can continue arguing about something devoid of any practical application or use, and we could as well be discussing pink elephants and the Easter bunny.
Post 28 Feb 2010, 19:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
That's where you're wrong. The whole matter is not about extrapolating (generalizing individual cases) but studying the entire subject as a system, i.e. as the sum of its individual bits/atoms.
Not always Wink

Sometimes you study, e.g: how neurons work -- the explanation you give is for one neuron, an "ideal" example/class, not an instance or specific instances or groups...

You don't always study how a CPU works as a whole, sometimes you study how a transistor works too -- and extrapolate then.

ManOfSteel wrote:
It should be scientifically and technologically possible to study every atom of a nerve
Of course, but not humanly possible -- i.e for a human to do so (rather than just your brain). You will need extra storage and computer computations to assist you. Which is what it all was about: an entity can not know how itself works in its entirety, without extrapolating or using external aid.

Because basically when you use external storage it's not "you", as an entity, who "knows" it, but the storage devices... you only look it up (and forget probably later). Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Mar 2010, 14:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
All modern discoveries in any scientific domain related to humans themselves or the external world/universe - from quantum mechanics, to chemistry and biology, to astrophysics -, have used machines and "external storage" because it's impossible to do otherwise. Does the Human Genome project come to mind? Or the innumerable experiments involving particle accelerators?
And in simpler experiments, it's just useful and convenient.

What's the big difference between finding something out using our bare hands and eyes, and doing the exact same thing using machines and tools we made? Isn't this pointlessly semantic?
Are we allowed to use microscopes? Hand lenses? What about papers/notebooks? They're "storage" too...
Post 01 Mar 2010, 15:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Dude, this is where it started from, and what I am talking about, what edfed said:
edfed wrote:
but trying to understand it is like if a PC tries to understand its internal by itself. it is a little impossible.
note the words BY ITSELF, that means NO EXTERNAL DEVICES or NETWORKED COMPUTERS or EXTRA MEMORY.

It is like having an 8GB virtual machine in your PC which has only 4GB of RAM and no page file.

Impossible.

Sure what you are saying with "taking notes" or "external stuff" is like networking an external computer to it to share the load. That's not "by itself".

Wink



Basically you can formulate it thus: it is impossible for all "atoms" in the universe to know everything about themselves, since they have no ability to draw "external" aid anymore -- all the others are taken.

e.g: if there's only 5 people with 5 computers available in the Universe (due to material reasons, not human development), and I need 4 of them to understand myself, it's impossible for the other humans to understand themselves. The only way you can make it available for everyone would be if you would need only your computer to do it... or rather just yourself.

But "self-studying", and by that I mean no external aid, is impossible. The whole thing what it was about... and by 'self-studying' I mean of course in its entirety, not just the "hashes" or "summary" of the data...

The thing with 'external' aid is that... it begs the question: is it YOU, or the external 'thing', that actually analyzes you? Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Mar 2010, 16:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
sleepsleep wrote:
was pondering about this,
our 3D space, is that possible to open up the space like how we open the book?
Hi, sleepsleep. Smile

I guess you may enjoy very much this video clip because it is somehow related to your vision of our 3D space Wink:Razz
Post 01 Mar 2010, 18:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8868
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
cool Smile thanks mhajduk.
Post 01 Mar 2010, 18:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Your welcome, sleepsleep. Very Happy
Post 01 Mar 2010, 18:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
note the words BY ITSELF, that means NO EXTERNAL DEVICES or NETWORKED COMPUTERS or EXTRA MEMORY.

Sorry, but no. You're playing with words here. Semantics, as I was saying.
The processes of discovering, analyzing and understanding are different from the process of storing.

And it's still possible. You do it in steps, one unit (neuron, gene, transistor, atom, etc.) after the other and when you "run out of space", you store and accumulate the information gathered in external media and continue where you left off. This is still understanding its internal by itself. No matter where you store the output of your "exploration".

The same holds for your 5 computers example. You can study one person after the other (using your 4 machines) and store the information in external media.
It works, unless you also require that everyone must reach "enlightenment" at the same time hehe.

Machines can "understand" themselves too, in a way. That's the role of sensors in computers. There are many sensors for many things. In lalaland, you could add a sensor for everything including the sensors themselves. It would be a "I sense you, you sense me" sort of thing. But it would also be insanely useless and costly.


Tools are only accessories. When you're using external aid, you are still the one observing and analyzing things, i.e. understanding them.
If someone is playing the violin, is it the violin that is playing? Is it the violin that has the techniques and virtuosity? Is it the violin that is making the physical and mental effort? Or the violinist?
Post 01 Mar 2010, 20:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
My point was that the sensor can't "understand" itself, not the whole machine. Also the machine can't understand itself in its "entirety" (see what I mean by it, above) just as well -- not just a machine but any thing really.

And "storing" information temporarily or notes is what I consider 'external aid', and in fact, can be considered that "part" of your analysis and understanding about yourself is done by that external object, not you. Razz


Analogy: compression.

Suppose there's this sequence in memory:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Now you want to "understand" it all. As human (in this example) you only have enough memory to hold 3 bytes for this 'problem'... clearly not enough. However let's suppose that you have the concept of integer functions (math functions) with limits. You can "store" or "understand" the above progression as follows:

x 1 9

(linear function x, from 1 to 9)

What you basically did was derived a formula/theory on your analysis, but this in no way guarantees it's true all the time, only when you analyzed it or tested it for its correctness -- all the rest is assumptions and extrapolations, stuff that you come up with, not the Universe/object/whatever.

But then again all compression needs assumption about its data or else it would be impossible to compress stuff.

But to understand in its "entirety", by that I mean no error whatsoever, down to the tiniest detail possible, complete omniscience of that entity/object/whatever. This is, of course, not that difficult to imagine in a virtual/computer world, because we use it everyday. (it does sound unrealistic in human terms though).

The simplest way to do that is to store the exact memory required, as in above -- any "deviations" or "wrong assumptions" are correctly represented, in fact, there aren't any assumptions at all. But for that you'll need the required 'memory' of the analyzed object, plus the analyzing routines to do that (or virtual machine core, or whatever). That's why it's impossible for something to study itself in its entirety. It needs at least the "core" or the "algorithms" OUTSIDE this analysis to be feasible.


A virtual machine emulator, for example, completely "encloses" the virtual machine inside, means it knowns it to the tiniest detail possible, no exceptions, in ALL cases. (or else it's not a full emulator anyway Razz)
Post 02 Mar 2010, 13:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.