Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
I laugh at the anthropological optimists that are confident that humans will be like gods for the same reason that I laugh loudly at cibernetical optimists. most of the effort of inteligent people is devoted to lie themselves and other in order to gain power and enslave people, at least, to seduce other in his sophisticated lies. The more inteligence, the more chance for creation and destruction. On the average, intelligence alone contribute zero to the advancement of society and thus contributes nothing to the advancement of anything. It is often the case that dumb people are wiser than intelligent people from Harvard of Yale staturated by ideology (self-profitable ideology, I could say). To have intelligent machines either autonomous or not don´t change that they could be used for good or for evil contributing nothing, not even to the progress of machines. 2014-11-24 7:45 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits Richard: You should be ashamed That's hardly an argument. Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we can stop here ... But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people, fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which, with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice structure is determined by the logic of self-reference. For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all computations. Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy. I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put a zero. Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure game. Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say. Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse. Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe. I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the multiverse, in the MWI view? The approximately being because branches are only approximately defined? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options,
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits Richard: You should be ashamed That's hardly an argument. Agreed Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we can stop here ... Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics. So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would drop by 1/r^2 where r is distance from the hole. If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is wrong. With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people, fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which, with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice structure is determined by the logic of self-reference. My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just how I see reality. For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all computations. I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is not an argument.. My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely physical as MWI poses, would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be illusion. Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy. The alternative is some kind of mathematical wave collapse to conserve both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where time matters. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties, that collapse may be instantaneous.But that collapse mechanism uses experiment-derived properties rather than math for lack of any time dependence. Richard Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy. I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put a zero. Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure game. Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Monday, November 24, 2014 6:45:22 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). John K Clark Please address the strong points in the argument and deal with it there. It isn't interesting to me or you, if this is simply about holding your previous position invariant and shifting everything else accordingly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?
On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript: mailto:yan...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp? If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the particle still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if there are two possible spin states, then you have created two worlds, each of which has all the energy of the original. That is the sense in which energy is not conserved. The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it, is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability of spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result 'up', the probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy could have been expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization restores this to 100% in each world. If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a stretch. exactly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:45 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of defining intelligence is hand-waved. I don't even ask for any measure of intelligence, I would just ask you to name one. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. My PhD advisor used to say something along these lines: All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of AI is to get a lot from a little. I think he also stole this from someone, not sure who though. With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be taught how to drive a car. The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities is the smoking gun that the intelligence part of AI is not increasing. I am aware that I am being hypocritical in that I am appealing to something that I just said I don't know how to define. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. I agree. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same software. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the argument I'm in until I see these surgeons, joke writers or physicists that you talk about. Telmo. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
Hi Alberto, You talk of advancement of society, so this implies some collective goal. What is the goal, in your view? Cheers Telmo. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I laugh at the anthropological optimists that are confident that humans will be like gods for the same reason that I laugh loudly at cibernetical optimists. most of the effort of inteligent people is devoted to lie themselves and other in order to gain power and enslave people, at least, to seduce other in his sophisticated lies. The more inteligence, the more chance for creation and destruction. On the average, intelligence alone contribute zero to the advancement of society and thus contributes nothing to the advancement of anything. It is often the case that dumb people are wiser than intelligent people from Harvard of Yale staturated by ideology (self-profitable ideology, I could say). To have intelligent machines either autonomous or not don´t change that they could be used for good or for evil contributing nothing, not even to the progress of machines. 2014-11-24 7:45 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?
MWI renormalization is just a snooker. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com mailto:yan...@gmail.com wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp? If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the particle still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if there are two possible spin states, then you have created two worlds, each of which has all the energy of the original. That is the sense in which energy is not conserved. The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it, is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability of spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result 'up', the probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy could have been expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization restores this to 100% in each world. If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a stretch. exactly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 24 Nov 2014, at 07:45, John Clark wrote: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. You mean they will be more competent? Yes, and more stupid too, as competence has a negative feedback on intelligence. Humans illustrates that well. May be intelligence can only decrease, and virgin universal machine are at their top of intelligence. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. That confirms you define intelligence by competence, then I can be OK with this. But competence is domain dependent, and for most general domain, the order contains many incomparable degrees. Bruno It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 24 Nov 2014, at 09:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I laugh at the anthropological optimists that are confident that humans will be like gods for the same reason that I laugh loudly at cibernetical optimists. most of the effort of inteligent people is devoted to lie themselves and other in order to gain power and enslave people, at least, to seduce other in his sophisticated lies. The more inteligence, the more chance for creation and destruction. On the average, intelligence alone contribute zero to the advancement of society and thus contributes nothing to the advancement of anything. It is often the case that dumb people are wiser than intelligent people from Harvard of Yale staturated by ideology (self-profitable ideology, I could say). To have intelligent machines either autonomous or not don´t change that they could be used for good or for evil contributing nothing, not even to the progress of machines. OK. I capture this often by saying that the difference between a small genius and a big genius is this: the small genius utters small bullshits, the great genius utters big bullshits ... Neotony provides hope that intelligence will still grow. All kids are intelligent, but that does not last long. Bruno 2014-11-24 7:45 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Monday, November 24, 2014 11:56:24 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:45 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of defining intelligence is hand-waved. I don't even ask for any measure of intelligence, I would just ask you to name one. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how translation services work. Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. My PhD advisor used to say something along these lines: All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of AI is to get a lot from a little. I think he also stole this from someone, not sure who though. With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be taught how to drive a car. The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities is the smoking gun that the intelligence part of AI is not increasing. I am aware that I am being hypocritical in that I am appealing to something that I just said I don't know how to define. Big Data does not involve theories of A.I I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and kludges that all add up to something big. I agree. It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for best fit Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human translators. And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same software. Well, maybe. But this doesn't address the argument that the guy in the video presented. He wasn't talking about mediocre translators being squeezed out. He was talking about them being squeezed in. The reason the scrapes need to happen each next day or whenever, is because language moves on. New colloquialism. New urban meaning. New local meaning. New precedent. New words are included in the dictionary each year. But dictionary meaning doesn't work for these big data algorithms. It's usage. So it isn't about getting better as a translator. It's simply that these algorithms cannot learn. Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there isn't. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the argument I'm in until I see these surgeons, joke writers or physicists that you talk about. Good to know. The article of evidence I have for you. Is...let's say no one had a clue what A.I. was supposed to mean. But the technology revolution had brought us thus far. Would the sort of explanations john Clarke offers for what A.I. and intelligence means, be showing up just the same? I think if we knew no more than we did 30 years ago, people would be coming up exactly the same arguments that Clark (and many others) construct. Therefore unless you can argue why that argument wouldn't be available without knowledge having advanced, surely my explanation is the simpler than his, for his own argument? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits Richard: You should be ashamed That's hardly an argument. Agreed Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we can stop here ... Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics. So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would drop by 1/r^2 where r is distance from the hole. If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is wrong. With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people, fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which, with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice structure is determined by the logic of self- reference. My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon, making directly the physical into something psychological. Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just how I see reality. OK. For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all computations. I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird, because there are no evidence for it. I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is not an argument.. My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely physical as MWI poses, Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats. would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be illusion. Unless energy is an illusion. Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist theology. But the logic of self-reference seems to be capable of explaining it, by imposing reversibility and linearity at the sigma_1 bottom (the global indeterminacy domain of the first person). The alternative is some kind of mathematical wave collapse to conserve both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where time matters. From the first person point of view. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties, that collapse may
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
(the global indeterminacy domain of the first person). The alternative is some kind of mathematical wave collapse to conserve both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where time matters. From the first person point of view. Yes! Each branch that a particular person is following (with wave collapse at every junction) is a unique POV. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties, that collapse may be instantaneous. Except for being macroscopic state, I am not sure why BEC entanglement is so special. Experimentally entangled BECs have EPR properties including instant transfer of correlations. But that collapse mechanism uses experiment-derived properties rather than math for lack of any time dependence. You can elaborate on this, as I am not sure to follow. The experimental data indicates that the correlations of entangled but separate BECs are transferred faster than detector accuracy. I am willing to assume instant transfer. If so, there is no time dependence- no process that math could predict. Correlations are of course a holding-place word like entanglement where we lump all properties we cannot explain. Theoretical physics work on black holes concludes that for black holes to communicate classically, the correlations must be monogamous- one on one.. That is, all black holes communicate quantum mechanically over Einstein-Rosen ER Bridges. But to communicate classically, that is to talk, you must shrink the area of all ERs to zero (compactification) except one, ER throat area being proportional to entanglement entropy. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf Hypothesizing that particles may behave like black holes, that explains wave collapse using quantum geometry.. arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0405152.pdf Richard Ruquist 20141124 www.bostonalarm.com Bruno Richard Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy. I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put a zero. Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure game. Bruno On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say. Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse. Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe. I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the multiverse, in the MWI view? The approximately being because branches are only approximately defined? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of defining intelligence is hand-waved. I wave my hand only to indicate the wide sweep of definitions of intelligence you are free to use without one word of complaint from me. Well... that isn't entirely true, there is one definition I would object to, intelligence is whatever computers arn't good at YET. I don't even ask for any measure of intelligence, I would just ask you to name one. I will name several: winning at checkers, winning at chess, winning at Jeopardy, solving equations, driving a car, translating a language, recognizing images, becoming the world's best research librarian. All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of AI is to get a lot from a little. A human translator can't get good at translating language X to Y unless he hears a lot of both languages X and Y, and the same is true of computers. With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be taught how to drive a car. Computers can do both and subroutines exist so what's the problem? The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities is the smoking gun that the intelligence part of AI is not increasing. A computer that beat the 2 best human players of Jeopardy on planet Earth blew that argument into (sorry but I just have to say it) bits . And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same software. I see no evidence that humans use the same mental software to translate languages, solve differential equations, walk and chew gum at the same time, and write about philosophy on the internet; I think humans use different subroutines for different tasks just as computers do. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the argument I'm in until I see these surgeons, joke writers or physicists that you talk about. That just means you are a reasonable man. The people who exasperate me are those who say that even though X does very intelligent things that doesn't mean that X is intelligent. My point is that I don't believe in magic so I think that all the brilliant things humans have done over the last few thousand years happened because of the way the atoms in the 3 pounds of grey goo inside their bone box were organized, and so there is no reason that other things, like computers, couldn't be as intelligent or more so if they were organized in the right way. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:56:02 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: wrote: I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of defining intelligence is hand-waved. I wave my hand only to indicate the wide sweep of definitions of intelligence you are free to use without one word of complaint from me. Well... that isn't entirely true, there is one definition I would object to, intelligence is whatever computers arn't good at YET. I don't even ask for any measure of intelligence, I would just ask you to name one. I will name several: winning at checkers, winning at chess, winning at Jeopardy, solving equations, driving a car, translating a language, recognizing images, becoming the world's best research librarian. All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of AI is to get a lot from a little. A human translator can't get good at translating language X to Y unless he hears a lot of both languages X and Y, and the same is true of computers. With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be taught how to drive a car. Computers can do both and subroutines exist so what's the problem? The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities is the smoking gun that the intelligence part of AI is not increasing. A computer that beat the 2 best human players of Jeopardy on planet Earth blew that argument into (sorry but I just have to say it) bits . And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good translators by observing how great translators do it. And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same software. I see no evidence that humans use the same mental software to translate languages, solve differential equations, walk and chew gum at the same time, and write about philosophy on the internet; I think humans use different subroutines for different tasks just as computers do. Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here). I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the argument I'm in until I see these surgeons, joke writers or physicists that you talk about. That just means you are a reasonable man. The people who exasperate me are those who say that even though X does very intelligent things that doesn't mean that X is intelligent. My point is that I don't believe in magic so I think that all the brilliant things humans have done over the last few thousand years happened because of the way the atoms in the 3 pounds of grey goo inside their bone box were organized, and so there is no reason that other things, like computers, couldn't be as intelligent or more so if they were organized in the right way. John K Clark But what is distinctive about your position, that would not be available if our knowledge of what intelligence was had not advanced? There's two logical explanations for your position. One of them is simply that you are saying what you would be saying if technology had advanced but the understanding of how to create A.I. had not. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I agree. Unlike the second law, which is more like a law of logic than of physics, the first law (conservation of energy) is more a result of happenstance. According to Noether's theorem the conservation of energy exists because the laws of physics have remained the same from when our branch first existed to today, and conservation of momentum exists because physical law remains the same from one place in our branch to another place. All that is true in our branch but need not be true of the entire multiverse. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
zibb...@gmail.com: But what is distinctive about your position, that would not be available if our knowledge of what intelligence was had not advanced? Perhaps a computer could but I'm only human and I don't understand the question. There's two logical explanations for your position. One of them is simply that you are saying what you would be saying if technology had advanced but the understanding of how to create A.I. had not. From a practical operational standpoint the important thing isn't how fast humans are figuring out how intelligence works but how fast machines are becoming intelligent. I think it very unlikely, probably impossible, that any human being, or even any group of people, will ever have a deep understanding of how the first human level AI works; but that doesn't mean such machines won't get built, and in less than 50 years, possibly much less. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Monday, November 24, 2014 5:59:56 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: zib...@gmail.com javascript:: But what is distinctive about your position, that would not be available if our knowledge of what intelligence was had not advanced? Perhaps a computer could but I'm only human and I don't understand the question. There's two logical explanations for your position. One of them is simply that you are saying what you would be saying if technology had advanced but the understanding of how to create A.I. had not. From a practical operational standpoint the important thing isn't how fast humans are figuring out how intelligence works but how fast machines are becoming intelligent. I think it very unlikely, probably impossible, that any human being, or even any group of people, will ever have a deep understanding of how the first human level AI works; but that doesn't mean such machines won't get built, and in less than 50 years, possibly much less. I agree it can happen. But I think it's a hard problem that will need to be theory led. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
real A.I.
http://xkcd.com/1450/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:15 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: From a practical operational standpoint the important thing isn't how fast humans are figuring out how intelligence works but how fast machines are becoming intelligent. I think it very unlikely, probably impossible, that any human being, or even any group of people, will ever have a deep understanding of how the first human level AI works; but that doesn't mean such machines won't get built, and in less than 50 years, possibly much less. I agree it can happen. But I think it's a hard problem that will need to be theory led. Even if true (and I it think unlikely there is a one all encompassing theory of intelligence) it won't be humans who need or obtain the theory. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
The gas does not flow unidirectionally in the column as in a pipe. There is no net flow. Convection involves a cyclic, mostly vertical, movement of gas in the column. Here is a thought experiment you may consider. A column of gas in a gravitational field is initially assigned an isothermal temperature distribution. Fans are placed at the bottom and configured to blow air vertically, setting up a forced convection. Question 1: Will the column remain isothermal? Question 2: What happens if the fans are turned off. What will the column final state be? These are tricky questions but answering them may enlighten the Loschmidt paradox. George Levy On 11/23/2014 5:38 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM, George gl...@quantics.net mailto:gl...@quantics.net wrote: There is no convection current even though gas near the floor is hotter than gas near the ceiling. The reason is that gas rising in an adiabatic column expands and cools exactly at the same rate as the adiabatic temperature lapse and therefore the gas is in equilibrium. But what if the column of gas can't expand because it's in a sealed insulated pipe? Loschmidt ignored the fact that the energy of the molecules is correlated with their vertical direction of movement. For example, those molecules which are at the top of their trajectories (zero vertical kinetic energy) must always experience their next collision at a lower elevation. But there will always be some molecules at the very top of the column, does that mean there will always be a downward current starting from the very top and a corresponding upward replacement current? Obviously do to the second law we know you couldn't set up a turbine and get work out of one of those currents, but exactly where is the flaw in the idea? Perhaps the error is that the 2 currents would be so small and intermingled that the turbine would just move back and forth in a random way and so you couldn't get any work out of it, and connecting the turbine to a ratchet wouldn't help because the ratchet is at the same temperature as the gas so it will undergo Brownian motion, and the bouncing ratchet teeth will slip at random intervals and allow the ratchet to slip backwards, so the end result is no net work. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
Isn't this news a few months old? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote: Isn't this news a few months old? dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No renormalization results in chaos. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No renormalization results in chaos. Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't lead to difficulties. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No renormalization results in chaos. Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't lead to difficulties. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is there evidence of this sort of change? On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote: Isn't this news a few months old? dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
None of this is relevant if the multiverse differentiates rather than splitting. Then you ends with the same number of photons you started with; the only difference is that previously they were fungible, but now they aren't. I thought the general view was that the MWI involves differentiation of identical worlds rather than one world splitting into lots of others? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
Play with words? OK with me. Just kindly circumscribe a measure of intelligence (including, of course, a definition of Intelligence you prefer). Am I 2.5 times more intelligent *than you*, or are you same *than me*? I still prefer the 'inter-lego' heritage, to be *mental* enough to READ between the lines (hidden(?) meaning?), not to stick to the spelled out words ONLY. (How does that sound in view (??!) of the US Constitution? Or the Magna Charta? or even the Scripture*S*?) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2014 at 19:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day than we were 20 years ago. You should be equally certain, because the first statement entails the second one :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?
I believe the answer is that worlds differentiate in the MWI, rather than splitting. There is already a continuum of identical worlds, which differentiates into 2 continua, one with spin up and one with spin down. At least according to the diagrams in FOR of a coin toss etc (iirc) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Richard Ruquist wrote: Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse. I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek: http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf Bruce On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkellett@optusnet.__com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No renormalization results in chaos. Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't lead to difficulties. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Richard Ruquist wrote: Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse. I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek: http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf Excerpt: In this precise sense those two branches describe mutually inaccessible (decoherent) worlds, both made of the same materials, and both occupying the same space. Two whole worlds of extra energy and matter. You got to be kidding. Bruce On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkellett@optusnet.__com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original photon. ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in branches, not in the multiverse. I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem). You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse. Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No renormalization results in chaos. Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't lead to difficulties. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Or: the MWI of my NARRATIVE; as in the Plenitude's infinite equilibration (more than symmetry) 'similars' get to close for an equilibrated comfort, the formed knots(?) expose some complexity (forbidden!) that dissipates as it forms, YET in the process form a (transitional - complex?) world - callable *a universe*. So every such universe is different because of the kind of Plenitude-ingredients that formed it. Ours is a pretty primitive one (I am modest). We look at it from the inside and do not see ant further (argument against contacting OTHER worlds). THEY (??) *may* contact us - see the 'Zookeeper Theory'. We are all contempraries, Plenitude does not carry a time-handicap. Only *within* our 'world' do we acknowledge the arrow of time to satisfy our worldviews. But award-winning physicist-scientists do not get involved in such ideas. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: None of this is relevant if the multiverse differentiates rather than splitting. Then you ends with the same number of photons you started with; the only difference is that previously they were fungible, but now they aren't. I thought the general view was that the MWI involves differentiation of identical worlds rather than one world splitting into lots of others? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is there evidence of this sort of change? On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote: Isn't this news a few months old? dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Wilczek also says something like this only seems like a problem if you assume energy is a substance. I would also add * You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views aren't possible in the MWI. * The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable, and you can't add to the infinite mass/energy already available. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no mention of expanding galaxies. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/24/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. An interesting perspective. Does it go both ways? IS a being having its own objective necessarily conscious? And what exactly does it mean to have one's own objective? Is having children your own objective, or just the objective of your DNA? If we sent a conscious AI rover to Mars to explore, would exploration be its own objective? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 11/24/2014 2:54 PM, LizR wrote: Wilczek also says something like this only seems like a problem if you assume energy is a substance. I would also add * You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views aren't possible in the MWI. * The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable, and you can't add to the infinite mass/energy already available. ISTM there are two ways of looking at it. In one you say before the event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened. The energy before x was the same as after x, so energy is conserved. In the other you say x happened with probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,... And in each of x,y,z energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is conserved in the multiverse. Non-conservation only appears when you use these two pictures inconsistently. From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) energy is just the conjugate variable of time. We want our theories to apply at all times so we seek formulations of energy and time that do this as simply as possible. Having a conserved quantity called energy is a consequence of having theories that apply uniformly in time. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. From a practical operational standpoint it doesn't matter if a machine (or one of my fellow human beings) is conscious or not, all that matters is if it can outsmart me or not. And by the way, if you think that smartphone is more than just a name for a certain type of phone and is really smart then why don't you think it's conscious too? It's almost as if you believe that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence. The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. But even if a intelligent being is not conscious (something I am quite sure is not possible) it would have tendencies to act in one way rather than another determined by the thoughts (call them information streams if you like euphemisms) flowing through its brain; and the more intelligent the being is the harder it would be for you to understand them. And those thoughts may very often have absolutely positively nothing to do with your best interests. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:37 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: I still prefer the 'inter-lego' heritage, to be *mental* enough to READ between the lines (hidden(?) meaning?), not to stick to the spelled out words ONLY. (How does that sound in view (??!) of the US Constitution? Or the Magna Charta? or even the Scripture*S*?) If I were shown the above during a Turing Test I'd say it didn't come from a human being but from a very glitchy early computer with a list of some English words in it's memory and a program that would spit them out acording to the wims of a random number generator. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. From a practical operational standpoint it doesn't matter if a machine (or one of my fellow human beings) is conscious or not, all that matters is if it can outsmart me or not. And by the way, if you think that smartphone is more than just a name for a certain type of phone and is really smart then why don't you think it's conscious too? It's almost as if you believe that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence. We've made intelligent machines, but I don't know of any conscious ones (except those nature has produced, I mean) The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. But even if a intelligent being is not conscious (something I am quite sure is not possible) it would have tendencies to act in one way rather than another determined by the thoughts (call them information streams if you like euphemisms) flowing through its brain; and the more intelligent the being is the harder it would be for you to understand them. And those thoughts may very often have absolutely positively nothing to do with your best interests. Looks like you are using an unusual definition of consciousness, so I will pass on this discussion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've made intelligent machines, Yes. but I don't know of any conscious ones If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you know that such machines are not conscious? For that matter how do you know that a rock is not conscious but your fellow human beings are conscious when they're not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/24/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. From a practical operational standpoint it doesn't matter if a machine (or one of my fellow human beings) is conscious or not, all that matters is if it can outsmart me or not. And by the way, if you think that smartphone is more than just a name for a certain type of phone and is really smart then why don't you think it's conscious too? It's almost as if you believe that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence. We've made intelligent machines, but I don't know of any conscious ones (except those nature has produced, I mean) But do you know we /*have not*/ made any conscious ones? The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. But even if a intelligent being is not conscious (something I am quite sure is not possible) it would have tendencies to act in one way rather than another determined by the thoughts (call them information streams if you like euphemisms) flowing through its brain; and the more intelligent the being is the harder it would be for you to understand them. And those thoughts may very often have absolutely positively nothing to do with your best interests. Looks like you are using an unusual definition of consciousness, so I will pass on this discussion. What do you consider the usual definition of consciousness? Is it having an inner narrative (per Julian Jaynes)? Perceiving and reacting to surroundings? Understanding Lob's theorem? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 25 November 2014 at 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/24/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. From a practical operational standpoint it doesn't matter if a machine (or one of my fellow human beings) is conscious or not, all that matters is if it can outsmart me or not. And by the way, if you think that smartphone is more than just a name for a certain type of phone and is really smart then why don't you think it's conscious too? It's almost as if you believe that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence. We've made intelligent machines, but I don't know of any conscious ones (except those nature has produced, I mean) But do you know we *have not* made any conscious ones? No, of course I don't, how could I? I said I wasn't aware of any. The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. But even if a intelligent being is not conscious (something I am quite sure is not possible) it would have tendencies to act in one way rather than another determined by the thoughts (call them information streams if you like euphemisms) flowing through its brain; and the more intelligent the being is the harder it would be for you to understand them. And those thoughts may very often have absolutely positively nothing to do with your best interests. Looks like you are using an unusual definition of consciousness, so I will pass on this discussion. What do you consider the usual definition of consciousness? Is it having an inner narrative (per Julian Jaynes)? Perceiving and reacting to surroundings? Understanding Lob's theorem? I believe it's to do with awareness of one's self and surroundings, or something like that, but I'm not an expert and maybe you have a better definition? What I do know is that it isn't just another word for intelligence, which is what I was objecting to (as the quote above shows). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 25 November 2014 at 16:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've made intelligent machines, Yes. but I don't know of any conscious ones If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you know that such machines are not conscious? For that matter how do you know that a rock is not conscious but your fellow human beings are conscious when they're not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. You could equally well say if smelling of raspberries isn't a test for consciousness, how do we know that light bulbs aren't unicorns? As far as I'm aware none of us knows anything for sure. On the balance of probabilities, however, I would say that rocks most likely aren't conscious, and that people probably are (when not asleep etc). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/24/2014 9:56 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/24/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines, which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. From a practical operational standpoint it doesn't matter if a machine (or one of my fellow human beings) is conscious or not, all that matters is if it can outsmart me or not. And by the way, if you think that smartphone is more than just a name for a certain type of phone and is really smart then why don't you think it's conscious too? It's almost as if you believe that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence. We've made intelligent machines, but I don't know of any conscious ones (except those nature has produced, I mean) But do you know we /*have not*/ made any conscious ones? No, of course I don't, how could I? I said I wasn't aware of any. You aren't aware of any that /*are */conscious. That means for each intelligent machine you either don't know whether it's conscious or not, OR you know it's not conscious. So my question was do you know of any in the last category? The main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives. But even if a intelligent being is not conscious (something I am quite sure is not possible) it would have tendencies to act in one way rather than another determined by the thoughts (call them information streams if you like euphemisms) flowing through its brain; and the more intelligent the being is the harder it would be for you to understand them. And those thoughts may very often have absolutely positively nothing to do with your best interests. Looks like you are using an unusual definition of consciousness, so I will pass on this discussion. What do you consider the usual definition of consciousness? Is it having an inner narrative (per Julian Jaynes)? Perceiving and reacting to surroundings? Understanding Lob's theorem? I believe it's to do with awareness of one's self and surroundings, or something like that, but I'm not an expert and maybe you have a better definition? What I do know is that it isn't just another word for intelligence, which is what I was objecting to (as the quote above shows). I don't think John's post implied that conscious was another word for intelligence. I think his position is that a being could be conscious without being intelligent (which would be consistent with aware of one's self and surroundings), but not vice versa. I don't think being conscious is a simple unitary attribute. I think there are different kinds of being conscious some of which I suggested above. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/24/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 16:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've made intelligent machines, Yes. but I don't know of any conscious ones If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you know that such machines are not conscious? For that matter how do you know that a rock is not conscious but your fellow human beings are conscious when they're not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. You could equally well say if smelling of raspberries isn't a test for consciousness, how do we know that light bulbs aren't unicorns? As far as I'm aware none of us knows anything for sure. On the balance of probabilities, however, I would say that rocks most likely aren't conscious, and that people probably are (when not asleep etc). As you must realize (not really being a bear of small brain) the point of the question is how can we know whether anything is conscious or not - and I don't mean for sure, just ordinary beyond reasonable doubt sure. I think John is pointing the fact that intelligent behavior is a common criterion for consciousness. But whether it's definitive, I'm not sure. I think it depends on what kind of consciousness is meant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
meekerdb wrote: ISTM there are two ways of looking at it. In one you say before the event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened. The energy before x was the same as after x, so energy is conserved. In the other you say x happened with probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,... And in each of x,y,z energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is conserved in the multiverse. Non-conservation only appears when you use these two pictures inconsistently. This seems to be the same as the renormalization that Wilczek talks about -- you essentially re-weight energies in the same way as you re-weight probabilities. From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) energy is just the conjugate variable of time. We want our theories to apply at all times so we seek formulations of energy and time that do this as simply as possible. Having a conserved quantity called energy is a consequence of having theories that apply uniformly in time. Without local energy conservation QM, on which MWI is based, is in real trouble. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
