flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > does the devil know what you are thinking right now?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Right, my wording wasn't careful enough in second quote. What I meant is of course that Bell's Theorem disproved local hidden variable theory, leaving theory incorporating some randomness as the main replacement.

IMO holding up to Bohm interpretation has a slight problem with occam razor rule - it seems to complicate things a bit just to keep determinism, when there is simpler valid theory. But I am only an amateur in this, I can be easily wrong in this point.
Post 03 Mar 2009, 11:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
vid wrote:
Right, my wording wasn't careful enough in second quote. What I meant is of course that Bell's Theorem disproved local hidden variable theory, leaving theory incorporating some randomness as the main replacement.

IMO holding up to Bohm interpretation has a slight problem with occam razor rule - it seems to complicate things a bit just to keep determinism, when there is simpler valid theory. But I am only an amateur in this, I can be easily wrong in this point.
Seems more simple to me.

E.G. where it's "Hmm we don't know what X is.. so it must be random! Even though everything else follows cause and effect perfectly 100% of the time, let's assume this doesn't, just because we can't prove it does (yet)!" in indeterminism, it's just "We don't understand X yet." in Bohm interpretation.


Besides those scenarios there aren't significant differences.
Post 03 Mar 2009, 14:30
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
I thought that WAS your excuse for "free will" (as opposed to cause and effect)? If not.. what is?
No, my arguments here have only been against determinism, not pro-free-will Wink

Azu wrote:
That has infinitely more basis then complete assumptions like "everything was created by God" that have NOTHING to back them up (i.e. differentiate them from flat out lies e.g.; "My name is hsjdgfjh and I'm 10 feet tall") at all.
Not necessarily in my lifetime, but they maybe had in the past. 95% of what I know about science comes from books or the media. And guess where I know about religion from Razz

vid wrote:
It was proven (in scientific means of proving) over and over until discovery of quantum phenomena, and until then it was able to explain and predict everything.
Nope. Or if you mean by proof "with a certain margin of error" then sorry, I won't cut it. That could just as well be randomness.

So if anything there is NO proof for determinism, unless you accept a certain margin of error. But that, like I said, could be randomness in action.

vid wrote:
If there is some amplifying going on, it obviously doesn't happen in single step, by the quantum fluctuation from average value used by determinism, has to be amplified step by step. That allows analysis (something that I thing you don't want to allow, so that you can stay in realm of unknown, where you can harmonize your beliefs with science without testing them, eg. without risk of discovering your beliefs are false). But analysis is possible anyway (even if the amplification of quantum fluctuation happened in a single neuron, and not step-by-step). Can you explain the mechanism which amplifies the quantum fluctuation in a neuron?
Two things to note:

1) You are (and not only you, but many determinism scientists) constantly saying that we analyze the brain, we know how it works, but you have no idea at all on the large scale, which we're interested in anyway.

If not, then go and win some special prize for predicting human behavior with 99% accuracy. I admit I'm a bit clueless about SOME brain functions (not completely clueless, but still "work-in-progress"), but then again, I may not KNOW the "random function" that works in the brain so I can test it properly (too complex IMO) but I at least highly suspect it is random.

2) The neuron itself isn't quantum-mechanized of course, the atoms are, and the neuron acts accordingly.

vid wrote:
I am not the one making claim - I say that brain is just like anything else at our scale, beheaving in a such way that quantum effects don't cause difference noticeable at our scale.
Who said that "anything else" isn't random? What's "noticeable"? On the large scale?
Of course, if you look at the brain with X-Rays you won't observe randomness in action. If you open your computer case, you won't see anything "moving" just as if it is turned off. This doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything or that it isn't influenced by random (CPUs are, that's SOME models need high voltages to keep it under control!).

vid wrote:
In fact, we are lucky to have a guy who have dealt with neurology. Tom, can you please comment on Borsucs's "alternative belief", that brain is a device that amplifies tiny differences of values predicted by quantum physics from values predicted by traditional physics, so much that differences become major even at our scale, and cause different "decisions" (up to level of moving or not a hand, saying different word, etc)?
Sorry but that is NOT my alternative belief.
It is NOT an amplification. You use a way too strange language if you mean what I mean by amplification.

You don't amplify something. Imagine each neuron fires either 0 or 1 to another one. It has a 90% chance of going 0, and 10% of going 1 (because of various reasons). A single bit can change the whole outcome because that's how data works. In computer terms, it may cause an irreversible crash -- but here, since it's inherently parallel, it is different. It is much closer, by this analogy, to a "quantum computer".

Besides, like I said before, "values predicted" by determinism in the brain is bogus. If you want to prove that, analyze some dude and predict what he'll do in a week, margin of error over 1% NOT accepted (as that could be random itself). Otherwise you have no more predictions than random itself.

See where I'm going?

vid wrote:
Of course not entire, but that's IMO more because of its complexity (the size), and not because of some non-deterministic mechanisms going on. Again, tom's comment could clear out whether there indeed is some nondeterministic quantum mechanism influencing brain in a major way.
Innocent until proven otherwise? Wink
No one knows, but only few admit that (among scientists I mean).

vid wrote:
You are still ignoring the fact that true randomness (such as quantum randomness is, according to latest science) becomes almost perfectly deterministic at a large scale. If there is true_random(2) taken twice, i can say that it will be 50% times 0 and 50% times 1 with only a very high margin of error. However, if I call true_random(2) zillion times, I can say it will be 50% times 0 and 50% times 1 with minimal margin of error. That's the principe of casinos, and that's also why quantum effects are rarely apparent in this quantum-based world at this scale - you really need some very specific apparatus to amplify one single fluctuation. This is maybe 3rd time I am repeating this - is that so hard to grasp? Randomness is perfectly predictable with minimal relative error at large scale . In fact, that predictability is the way how quantum effects were proven to be random by Bell's Theorem. If you disallow that predictability of randomness at large scale, you can't even claim quantum effects are random.
http://www.birs.ca/workshops/2003/03w5096/

Don't you find it ironic that quantum computers, which are the best analogy there is to "real AI" not the simulated crap we have in commercial packages, resemble this more?

Well I have a prediction myself: we will develop an "AI" with quantum computers before we'll understand the brain as well as we should if we were to make an AI from it (this means to make 99% correct predictions given a simple analysis). How ironic I guess.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast


Last edited by Borsuc on 03 Mar 2009, 19:48; edited 1 time in total
Post 03 Mar 2009, 18:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
No, my arguments here have only been against determinism, not pro-free-will Wink
Why? Confused

If causality is wrong, your arguments won't cause anything, and any effects they seem to have, just happened by chance, and thus would have happened anyways.

If causality is right, you are arguing against the truth.



Either way.. pointless argument. Razz



Borsuc wrote:
Not necessarily in my lifetime, but they maybe had in the past. 95% of what I know about science comes from books or the media. And guess where I know about religion from Razz
The of nature laws can be (and are, frequently) confirmed, though. Religion can not be, since it makes no claims about anything that can be noticed or verified in any way.



Borsuc wrote:
Nope. Or if you mean by proof "with a certain margin of error" then sorry, I won't cut it. That could just as well be randomness.

So if anything there is NO proof for determinism, unless you accept a certain margin of error. But that, like I said, could be randomness in action.
In otherwords, everything follows the laws of nature, or everything doesn't, unless some kind of reason is given as to why one thing is and one thing isn't.

I agree 100%.

And since spacetime positions are analogue (infinite possible positions), the chances of the universe being in the state it is randomly, are 1 in infinity. Likewise the chances of it reverting to some random incoherent state within the next unit of Planck time would be infinity to 1.


So it's very safe to assume that the nature of the universe is NOT random.


Borsuc wrote:
constantly saying that we analyze the brain, we know how it works, but you have no idea at all on the large scale
I know that introducing a large mass of lead into the brain at high velocity will consistently have large scale effects on it, and the processes of thought contained in it. This has been proven countless times.

Obviously if you hide behind the randomness excuse you can say that there will always be a margin for error; "it is always POSSIBLE that the brain simply died of random causes, and that the introduction of the lead was merely coincidental, even though the correlation is always perfect".
That is a complete rejection of all that is coherent, though.


Borsuc wrote:
or that it isn't influenced by random (CPUs are, that's SOME models need high voltages to keep it under control!).
That is because of faulty manufacturing process, faulty supply of power, and interference from radiation. Perfectly deterministic.


Borsuc wrote:
If you want to prove that, analyze some dude and predict what he'll do in a week
Fail. Accurate (as opposed to having a margin of error) predictions require perfect knowledge of all variables and algorithms involved. This is an outrageous request unless all input to his brain will be perfectly controlled by the testers, and the entire structure of his brain is perfectly known as well. On top of that all would be the requirement of an insane amount of processing power and memory.

Thus, high-level long-term perfect-precision predictions can't be realistically done with the current level of technology. If you remove ANY of those qualifiers, though, it would be possible right now.

Borsuc wrote:

Don't you find it ironic that quantum computers, which are the best analogy there is to "real AI" not the simulated crap we have in commercial packages, resemble this more?

Well I have a prediction myself: we will develop an "AI" with quantum computers before we'll understand the brain as well as we should if we were to make an AI from it (this means to make 99% correct predictions given a simple analysis). How ironic I guess.
Why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? If anything it would be much harder, due to the much slower processing and much smaller memory..
Post 03 Mar 2009, 19:24
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
I know that introducing a large mass of lead into the brain at high velocity will consistently have large scale effects on it, and the processes of thought contained in it. This has been proven countless times.

Obviously if you hide behind the randomness excuse you can say that there will always be a margin for error; "it is always POSSIBLE that the brain simply died of random causes, and that the introduction of the lead was merely coincidental, even though the correlation is always perfect".
That is a complete rejection of all that is coherent, though.
Not really. I'm not saying that it is all random, but that the brain works randomly. Of course, if you introduce a large mass of lead, then some of the brain is destroyed, and it won't work. It's like deleting a program, even if the program had a function called "random" (not pseudo-random). When it's deleted, it won't work anymore. I'm not saying it's THAT unpredictable.

Azu wrote:
That is because of faulty manufacturing process, faulty supply of power, and interference from radiation. Perfectly deterministic.
Well when Intel went down to 45nm they had to change transistor design, especially the gate, which is too small, and the electrons "leaked" randomly with quantum tunneling, requiring huge voltages. That's why they changed it to something more "solid" in preventing leaks (still not fool-proof, nothing is). Imagine the brain which may be even more compact in structure (basic components) than today's CPU (not necessarily tomorrow's though). I will refrain from saying "neurons" as it's like saying "bit" which is, actually, formed of many transistors. Plus there are contradicting articles around (some even say the neurons communicate with 'sound' rather than 'electricity' among themselves).

Azu wrote:
Fail. Accurate (as opposed to having a margin of error) predictions require perfect knowledge of all variables and algorithms involved. This is an outrageous request unless all input to his brain will be perfectly controlled by the testers, and the entire structure of his brain is perfectly known as well. On top of that all would be the requirement of an insane amount of processing power and memory.

Thus, high-level long-term perfect-precision predictions can't be realistically done with the current level of technology. If you remove ANY of those qualifiers, though, it would be possible right now.
You don't know that. Just an assumption. Also, how do you distinguish random from "margin of error"? You assume it is an error and not random?

Azu wrote:
Why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? If anything it would be much harder, due to the much slower processing and much smaller memory..
Because "Commercial crap" isn't interested in knowledge but in profits. Real AIs won't be very profitable instantly, compared to say, specific-purpose AIs that we ALREADY have (processing power is also a factor). The "real" ones wouldn't be because it's always more profitable to have a "dumb" machine in a factory than a human/AI who wants wages or other stuff (real AI will want wages as well). So who will buy them? It would be like buying humans.

The best ideas always come from the academia or freelancers. Commercial crap is just a manifestation of that for profits.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Mar 2009, 16:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
I know that introducing a large mass of lead into the brain at high velocity will consistently have large scale effects on it, and the processes of thought contained in it. This has been proven countless times.

Obviously if you hide behind the randomness excuse you can say that there will always be a margin for error; "it is always POSSIBLE that the brain simply died of random causes, and that the introduction of the lead was merely coincidental, even though the correlation is always perfect".
That is a complete rejection of all that is coherent, though.
Not really. I'm not saying that it is all random, but that the brain works randomly. Of course, if you introduce a large mass of lead, then some of the brain is destroyed, and it won't work. It's like deleting a program, even if the program had a function called "random" (not pseudo-random). When it's deleted, it won't work anymore. I'm not saying it's THAT unpredictable.
So the amount of randomness is random? Only applying sometimes? .... Confused

That's even worse. Then you can just invoke it whenever something doesn't seem to make sense, while claiming everything else is sensible.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
That is because of faulty manufacturing process, faulty supply of power, and interference from radiation. Perfectly deterministic.
Well when Intel went down to 45nm they had to change transistor design, especially the gate, which is too small, and the electrons "leaked" randomly with quantum tunneling, requiring huge voltages. That's why they changed it to something more "solid" in preventing leaks (still not fool-proof, nothing is). Imagine the brain which may be even more compact in structure (basic components) than today's CPU (not necessarily tomorrow's though). I will refrain from saying "neurons" as it's like saying "bit" which is, actually, formed of many transistors. Plus there are contradicting articles around (some even say the neurons communicate with 'sound' rather than 'electricity' among themselves).
Why are you assuming that quantum tunneling is a random process?

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Fail. Accurate (as opposed to having a margin of error) predictions require perfect knowledge of all variables and algorithms involved. This is an outrageous request unless all input to his brain will be perfectly controlled by the testers, and the entire structure of his brain is perfectly known as well. On top of that all would be the requirement of an insane amount of processing power and memory.

Thus, high-level long-term perfect-precision predictions can't be realistically done with the current level of technology. If you remove ANY of those qualifiers, though, it would be possible right now.
You don't know that. Just an assumption. Also, how do you distinguish random from "margin of error"? You assume it is an error and not random?
It's easier to explain with an example.
I have an exact (not random) number of icons on my desktop right now.
Tell me how many I have.
You can guess, but there will be a (high) margin of error, because you do not have enough information to accurately tell. This does NOT imply my desktop has a random number of icons on it.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? If anything it would be much harder, due to the much slower processing and much smaller memory..
Because "Commercial crap" isn't interested in knowledge but in profits. Real AIs won't be very profitable instantly, compared to say, specific-purpose AIs that we ALREADY have (processing power is also a factor). The "real" ones wouldn't be because it's always more profitable to have a "dumb" machine in a factory than a human/AI who wants wages or other stuff (real AI will want wages as well). So who will buy them? It would be like buying humans.

The best ideas always come from the academia or freelancers. Commercial crap is just a manifestation of that for profits.
What I meant was; why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? Commercial computers nowadays are much faster and have much more memory then quantum computers.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 19:17
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Plue



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 151
Plue
Borsuc wrote:
vid wrote:
(so-called "problem of evil": why did he create evil power? why does he allow it to exist?)
freedom. if we want to be evil, or choose the Devil, he gave us the choice.

A robot never turns or disappoints his master, but doesn't mean the robot is happy. Look at children. Which are happier, those who are overly-protected and oppressed by their parents or those who have a sense of freedom? Even if they do stupid things.


If your god was really omnipotent he could make you truly happy without freedom.

_________________
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Some poems rhyme
And some don't.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 21:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
So the amount of randomness is random? Only applying sometimes? .... Confused

That's even worse. Then you can just invoke it whenever something doesn't seem to make sense, while claiming everything else is sensible.
I'm not sure I get what you mean, but here's an example maybe it'll clear what I meant.

You have a program that uses a "random" function (random, not pseudo-random) to give out either '1' or '0', every second. This, in turn, let's say lights a led red or green, depending on the value. So it will flash red-green-red-green but randomly.

As you can see, this doesn't mean that the device is entirely unpredictable -- like say, make a BLUE light. And this doesn't of course mean that it can do ANYTHING with a certain chance. Where did you get this from?

Azu wrote:
Why are you assuming that quantum tunneling is a random process?
Because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the wavefunction is random.

Azu wrote:
It's easier to explain with an example.
I have an exact (not random) number of icons on my desktop right now.
Tell me how many I have.
You can guess, but there will be a (high) margin of error, because you do not have enough information to accurately tell. This does NOT imply my desktop has a random number of icons on it.
You're right, it wouldn't, if I were omniscient, in this example.

But me being the clueless guy on the other end of the monitor (lol), how am I supposed to know EITHER of these? If I say it's random, it's an assumption. If I say it's not random, then it's an assumption as well -- that the reason I failed is because of an error. Doesn't mean it's more valid at least. Although with lots of errors it's not very useful either.

Azu wrote:
What I meant was; why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? Commercial computers nowadays are much faster and have much more memory then quantum computers.
Ah I get it, you mean digital computer we use today.
Our computers are nowhere near as fast as they should be to simulate the brain. And they aren't even parallel in the true sense of the word (i.e how the brain operates).

I'm not saying that they aren't useful, they are MUCH more useful at MANY tasks than us. But if you want to "emulate" human brain, you'll have to do it in its own way.

I am of the opinion that sequential algorithms (as our CPUs use, even with "parallel" threads btw) complement the parallel computers in our brains nicely. So both are useful for their own tasks Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Mar 2009, 21:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
So the amount of randomness is random? Only applying sometimes? .... Confused

That's even worse. Then you can just invoke it whenever something doesn't seem to make sense, while claiming everything else is sensible.
I'm not sure I get what you mean, but here's an example maybe it'll clear what I meant.

You have a program that uses a "random" function (random, not pseudo-random) to give out either '1' or '0', every second. This, in turn, let's say lights a led red or green, depending on the value. So it will flash red-green-red-green but randomly.

As you can see, this doesn't mean that the device is entirely unpredictable -- like say, make a BLUE light. And this doesn't of course mean that it can do ANYTHING with a certain chance. Where did you get this from?
Why would that function ignore the laws of nature while the rest of the program doesn't? Because you say so? o_O

And if the nature of matter was random, the whole program would be random, not just part of it. Heck, everything would be.

So either
A: Everything is random. No actions cause anything to happen, and nothing is caused by anything.
B: Everything happens for a real, physical reason.
C: You can somehow cause a certain thing to be random. This is self contradicting since randomness, by definition, has no cause...

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Why are you assuming that quantum tunneling is a random process?
Because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the wavefunction is random.
I see no mention of quantum tunneling on pages about the Uncertainty Principle. Do you mean that everything, and, thus, by extension, quantum tunneling, is random?

Anyways, all the uncertainty principle does is say that there is something we don't know how to predict. That doesn't mean that thing is random.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
It's easier to explain with an example.
I have an exact (not random) number of icons on my desktop right now.
Tell me how many I have.
You can guess, but there will be a (high) margin of error, because you do not have enough information to accurately tell. This does NOT imply my desktop has a random number of icons on it.
You're right, it wouldn't, if I were omniscient, in this example.

But me being the clueless guy on the other end of the monitor (lol), how am I supposed to know EITHER of these? If I say it's random, it's an assumption. If I say it's not random, then it's an assumption as well -- that the reason I failed is because of an error. Doesn't mean it's more valid at least. Although with lots of errors it's not very useful either.
That's what the margin of error is. You not having enough information (or not knowing how to use it, or both) to make an accurate prediction. Thus, you are uncertain about it. This doesn't make "it" any less concrete, it just means you don't understand it.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
What I meant was; why do you think it would be any easier to make "real artificial intelligence" (whatever that is) on a quantum computer than on a "commercial" computer? Commercial computers nowadays are much faster and have much more memory then quantum computers.
Ah I get it, you mean digital computer we use today.
Our computers are nowhere near as fast as they should be to simulate the brain. And they aren't even parallel in the true sense of the word (i.e how the brain operates).

I'm not saying that they aren't useful, they are MUCH more useful at MANY tasks than us. But if you want to "emulate" human brain, you'll have to do it in its own way.

I am of the opinion that sequential algorithms (as our CPUs use, even with "parallel" threads btw) complement the parallel computers in our brains nicely. So both are useful for their own tasks Wink
I think that if our digital computers are not fast enough, our quantum computers are definitely not fast enough.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 21:29
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Why would that function ignore the laws of nature while the rest of the program doesn't? Because you say so? o_O

And if the nature of matter was random, the whole program would be random, not just part of it. Heck, everything would be.

So either
A: Everything is random. No actions cause anything to happen, and nothing is caused by anything.
B: Everything happens for a real, physical reason.
C: You can somehow cause a certain thing to be random. This is self contradicting since randomness, by definition, has no cause...
Wait. I'm not sure you understand "chances" and different chances. This randomness has a "function", it's not always the same chances everywhere.

For example, a program that is designed to harness this random will most likely be influenced by it (as per my example above). But the chance that the program/computer does it wrong is small, although it may happen (i.e error). But even then it may not be catastrophic with good error correction. (I'm talking mainly about really small elements -- quantum level here, obviously).

Just because something has a chance of 50% to go in one direction doesn't mean that all the Universe and all random stuff you'll ever encounter must have the same chance. In fact the wavefunction is pretty complicated.

Azu wrote:
I see no mention of quantum tunneling on pages about the Uncertainty Principle. Do you mean that everything, and, thus, by extension, quantum tunneling, is random?

Anyways, all the uncertainty principle does is say that there is something we don't know how to predict. That doesn't mean that thing is random.
The uncertainty principle is related to frequency and time resolution, you can't know both of them with precision -- i.e if you choose one you sacrifice precision in the other. And quantum tunneling happens because of wave-like properties of electrons (wave-like = frequency stuff btw). You can draw the conclusions Wink

And of course by itself it doesn't say anything about randomness. But the wavefunction is random -- and quantum tunneling allows it to "tunnel" so to speak, which means that such randomness has an impact on small circuitry (such as a 45nm transistor) unless properly contained. (the 'gate' of the transistor is MUCH smaller than 45nm btw, around 6-8 atoms thick if I read correctly!).

Azu wrote:
That's what the margin of error is. You not having enough information (or not knowing how to use it, or both) to make an accurate prediction. Thus, you are uncertain about it. This doesn't make "it" any less concrete, it just means you don't understand it.
Yes I know.
But tell me something. The following stuff (just an example):

"Hey I've just seen a ghost for real, but I'm pretty sure it is explainable by determinism way beyond my comprehension" is NOT an assumption?

I'm not saying it's wrong -- heck I try to apply actually my weird theories to it as well, but I admit that they ARE assumptions on my behalf. Even assuming that the Laws of Physics will exist tomorrow is an assumption, as Planck said Smile

Azu wrote:
I think that if our digital computers are not fast enough, our quantum computers are definitely not fast enough.
The difference is in:

1) physical limits
2) emulation mode

That is, a quantum computer is much more suited for an 'emulation' of the human brain as compared to a digital one of today. On the other hand, it is not as suited to make sequentially algorithmical computations. I prefer the latter, though in AI I have to admit, it isn't the best tool to use (the digital one) as it lacks the parallelism and must emulate it. Ultra-slow.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Mar 2009, 03:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Why would that function ignore the laws of nature while the rest of the program doesn't? Because you say so? o_O

And if the nature of matter was random, the whole program would be random, not just part of it. Heck, everything would be.

So either
A: Everything is random. No actions cause anything to happen, and nothing is caused by anything.
B: Everything happens for a real, physical reason.
C: You can somehow cause a certain thing to be random. This is self contradicting since randomness, by definition, has no cause...
Wait. I'm not sure you understand Quantum Mechanics randomness. This randomness has a "function", it's not always the same chances.

For example, a program that is designed to harness this random will most likely be influenced by it (as per my example above). But the chance that the program/computer does it wrong is small, although it may happen. But even then it may not be catastrophic with good error correction. (I'm talking mainly about really small elements -- quantum level here, obviously).

Just because something has a chance of 50% to go in one direction doesn't mean that all the Universe and all random stuff you'll ever encounter must have the same chance. In fact the wavefunction is pretty complicated.
If it's not very evenly distributed, works differently in some things then in others, and is very complicated, how can you be sure it's even random and not just an algorithm with to many variables for us to understand yet and/or to complicated an algorithm?
At the subatomic level, all of the sources of gravity in the universe could very well have significant impact. This would be very hard to accurately predict, but not random.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
I see no mention of quantum tunneling on pages about the Uncertainty Principle. Do you mean that everything, and, thus, by extension, quantum tunneling, is random?

Anyways, all the uncertainty principle does is say that there is something we don't know how to predict. That doesn't mean that thing is random.
The uncertainty principle is related to frequency and time resolution, you can't know both of them with precision -- i.e if you choose one you sacrifice precision in the other. And quantum tunneling happens because of wave-like properties of electrons (wave-like = frequency stuff btw). You can draw the conclusions Wink

And of course by itself it doesn't say anything about randomness. But the wavefunction is random -- and quantum tunneling allows it to "tunnel" so to speak, which means that such randomness has an impact on small circuitry (such as a 45nm transistor) unless properly contained.
What I mean is, it doesn't say that's random. It just says that measuring one part of it biases the other so that they can't be measured together..

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
That's what the margin of error is. You not having enough information (or not knowing how to use it, or both) to make an accurate prediction. Thus, you are uncertain about it. This doesn't make "it" any less concrete, it just means you don't understand it.
Yes I know.
But tell me something. The following stuff (just an example):

"Hey I've just seen a ghost for real, but I'm pretty sure it is explainable by determinism way beyond my comprehension" is NOT an assumption?

I'm not saying it's wrong -- heck I try to apply actually my weird theories to it as well, but I admit that they ARE assumptions on my behalf. Even assuming that the Laws of Physics will exist tomorrow is an assumption, as Planck said Smile
I didn't say that there being a margin for error means something can't be random. I said that there being a margin for error doesn't imply randomness. If it did then my desktop would be random, which it isn't. Thus, there being a margin of error in knowing something isn't proof that that thing is random.

Here's a better example maybe..

How many CPU cycles has your computer used to render this page justn ow?

You can't predict that without a high margin of error (unless you are running your browser in some kind of debugger that counts them.. which you probably aren't, since most people don't).

This doesn't prove that it took a random number of CPU cycles to render it!

Margin of error is unrelated to randomness.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
I think that if our digital computers are not fast enough, our quantum computers are definitely not fast enough.
The difference is in:

1) physical limits
2) emulation mode

That is, a quantum computer is much more suited for an 'emulation' of the human brain as compared to a digital one of today. On the other hand, it is not as suited to make sequentially algorithmical computations. I prefer the latter, though in AI I have to admit, it isn't the best tool to use (the digital one) as it lacks the parallelism and must emulate it. Ultra-slow.
Why do you have to emulate the parallelism? Whether two instructions fire at the "same time" or a nanosecond after the other shouldn't make or break your program..

Anyways, there are varying latencies between the neurons in a brain, right? So, they aren't all perfectly in sync working at exactly the same time..
Post 06 Mar 2009, 04:10
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Here's where my current laptop ranks in efficiency:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+X2+Dual-Core+TK-53

Code:
CPU Type                                Passmark                              CPU Mark Rank
                                        (higher is better)                    (lower is better) 

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core TK-53    666                                   303
    


Does that mean I'm Satan??? If so, then I don't need to read your thoughts, I just read this forum. Twisted Evil

Well, it's not that surprising. This evil laptop does use Broadcom, heh.
Post 10 Mar 2009, 04:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
rugxulo wrote:
Here's where my current laptop ranks in efficiency:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+X2+Dual-Core+TK-53

Code:
CPU Type                                Passmark                              CPU Mark Rank
                                        (higher is better)                    (lower is better) 

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core TK-53        666                                   303
    


Does that mean I'm Satan??? If so, then I don't need to read your thoughts, I just read this forum. Twisted Evil
I don't know about that, but..

In Soviet Russia, THOUGHTS read YOU!
Post 10 Mar 2009, 04:48
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov??? The devil ate him!! Razz Razz Razz
Post 10 Mar 2009, 05:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
rugxulo wrote:
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov???
He was abducted by Yakov Smirnoff, his evil twin.
Post 10 Mar 2009, 06:04
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Quote:
If it's not very evenly distributed, works differently in some things then in others, and is very complicated, how can you be sure it's even random and not just an algorithm with to many variables for us to understand yet and/or to complicated an algorithm?
At the subatomic level, all of the sources of gravity in the universe could very well have significant impact. This would be very hard to accurately predict, but not random.
Well, it would actually be impossible to predict, as you would need a computer at least as complex as the Universe itself and independent, which is impossible. Not to mention omniscient (since it needs an 'input') and accessible to us in this Universe -- which would cause a paradox. If we can access it and it predicts that in 10 minutes an earthquake will abound, and we based on that information change outcome of things, then what it predicted would be wrong. It's like the time-travel paradox: go back in time and kill your grandmother. How do you exist? Razz

That's why I'm inclined to randomness and how quantum randomness is usually "justified" anyway.

Quote:
What I mean is, it doesn't say that's random. It just says that measuring one part of it biases the other so that they can't be measured together..
I suppose you actually mean that we "don't know"? But the catch is that it is impossible to know -- so we have to guess. It's impossible even with magic, as long as it obeys the laws of physics.

The Universe is "computing itself" anyway, it's literally (yes literally) impossible to predict it with 100% accuracy even if it were deterministic.

The ONLY way for you to predict things (ignoring free will) is to be from "another" world and omniscient -- being from another world doesn't make you susceptible to Uncertainty Principle or computing interference (our computers are part of this world after all and they must NOT be if you want to be omniscient using them)

Azu wrote:
Margin of error is unrelated to randomness.
I understand and you are correct of course, but the dilemma is

where do you draw the line?

or is it all just based on a belief that such margin or error was either random or, well, an "error"?


Azu wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov???
He was abducted by Yakov Smirnoff, his evil twin.
The Devil lost his sheep and will give a reward to anyone who sees it. He has provided us with a video of it: here?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 10 Mar 2009, 18:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Borsuc wrote:

Azu wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov???
He was abducted by Yakov Smirnoff, his evil twin.
The Devil lost his sheep and will give a reward to anyone who sees it. He has provided us with a video of it: here?


Laughing That's just silly. Cool

Anyways, I was just referring to Azu editing his own post, removing a silly Slashdot-ish joke ("In Soviet Russia thoughts hear YOU" or something similar).
Post 10 Mar 2009, 22:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Quote:
If it's not very evenly distributed, works differently in some things then in others, and is very complicated, how can you be sure it's even random and not just an algorithm with to many variables for us to understand yet and/or to complicated an algorithm?
At the subatomic level, all of the sources of gravity in the universe could very well have significant impact. This would be very hard to accurately predict, but not random.
Well, it would actually be impossible to predict, as you would need a computer at least as complex as the Universe itself and independent, which is impossible.
According to the christians it already exists. The call it "God".

Borsuc wrote:
Not to mention omniscient (since it needs an 'input') and accessible to us in this Universe -- which would cause a paradox. If we can access it and it predicts that in 10 minutes an earthquake will abound, and we based on that information change outcome of things, then what it predicted would be wrong. It's like the time-travel paradox: go back in time and kill your grandmother. How do you exist? Razz
Obviously a way would need found to measure without changing the outcome. Whether or not this can be done by us is irrelevant to the randomness vs. causality debate. Except that our action (measuring something) having an effect further proves cause and effect.

Borsuc wrote:
That's why I'm inclined to randomness and how quantum randomness is usually "justified" anyway.
It's beyond us for now.. therefor it's random? Confused

Borsuc wrote:
Quote:
What I mean is, it doesn't say that's random. It just says that measuring one part of it biases the other so that they can't be measured together..
I suppose you actually mean that we "don't know"? But the catch is that it is impossible to know -- so we have to guess. It's impossible even with magic, as long as it obeys the laws of physics.
The definition of magical/supernatural/spiritual/etc is "outside the laws of nature", so...

Borsuc wrote:
The Universe is "computing itself" anyway, it's literally (yes literally) impossible to predict it with 100% accuracy even if it were deterministic.
That is a category error.

Borsuc wrote:
The ONLY way for you to predict things (ignoring free will) is to be from "another" world and omniscient -- being from another world doesn't make you susceptible to Uncertainty Principle or computing interference (our computers are part of this world after all and they must NOT be if you want to be omniscient using them)
Or find a way to take the changes made into account.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Margin of error is unrelated to randomness.
I understand and you are correct of course, but the dilemma is

where do you draw the line?
There is no line. They aren't levels of the same thing.

Borsuc wrote:
or is it all just based on a belief that such margin or error was either random or, well, an "error"?
Margin for error is a description of the observer not the observed.


Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov???
He was abducted by Yakov Smirnoff, his evil twin.
The Devil lost his sheep and will give a reward to anyone who sees it. He has provided us with a video of it: here?
Wtf lol. Razz


rugxulo wrote:
Borsuc wrote:

Azu wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Hey, what happened to Yakov Smirnov???
He was abducted by Yakov Smirnoff, his evil twin.
The Devil lost his sheep and will give a reward to anyone who sees it. He has provided us with a video of it: here?


Laughing That's just silly. Cool

Anyways, I was just referring to Azu editing his own post, removing a silly Slashdot-ish joke ("In Soviet Russia thoughts hear YOU" or something similar).
I didn't remove anything. I just made the text small, like you did..
Post 10 Mar 2009, 23:17
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Azu wrote:
I didn't remove anything. I just made the text small, like you did..


You hid it pretty well then because I can't find it !!!
Post 12 Mar 2009, 01:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
rugxulo wrote:
Azu wrote:
I didn't remove anything. I just made the text small, like you did..


You hid it pretty well then because I can't find it !!!
Click the quote button or copy/paste it -.-
Post 12 Mar 2009, 01:42
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< 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. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.