2214 replies to this topic

[Julia36]

WE can reconstruct (forensically) the fame from bones...why not the brain from DNA?

That's because the connections in the brain are shaped by the life experiences of the person, including internal mental states. You'd need to simulate the whole life of a person including the time in the womb when the brain is growing the fastest. There seems to be no way to "simulate" this as the problem is underdetermined or perhaps even non-deterministic at some level.

Yes & I'm suggesting those life experiences are shaped ONLY by the environment which is constructable.


You can only have 2 objections to this: either we cant figure what that specific environment was, or the calculations involved are too big.

To which

1. The RECORDS are drawing up a description of the environment (including other people)

2. Calculation power is accelerating (eg Google and NASA just gone into quantum computing)

BTW the brain is not qualitatively different from the face. just more complex.

see:
quantum archaeology grid

https://sites.google...rchaeologygrid/

But to resurrect the dead doesn't need a complete earth simulation (this topic is well written about)
but the time lines tracing.
Archaeology isn't regarded to highly in the USA but in the UK it's esteemed.

[Julia36]

We have VAST and calculable data bases, artefactual and deducible

millions and millions of of bits and bones and grasses and geologies and readings and information.

The future isn't going to be like now.
Data bases will combine, Machine intelligences sift organise and configure.




We have MILES and MILES of archives of artefacts

World's Largest Human Fossil Cast Collection Goes Public

Edited by stopgam, 20 May 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[Julia36]

Zillions.

The data is INCREASING

and it;s being MORE ORGANISED

the speed of both is accelerating.

We're in pre=phase Archaeology where information is still held as artefacts, but that is changing.

We know from other sciences when a technology moves into Data/ pure information, is accelerates on a double exponential




eg

wiki: The Archaeology Data Service (ADS) is an open access digital archive for archaeological research outputs. It is located in The King's Manor, at the University of York. Originally intended to curate digital outputs from archaeological researchers based in the UK's Higher Education sector, the ADS also holds archive material created under the auspices of national and local government as well as in the commercial archaeology sector. The ADS carries out research, most of which focuses on resource discovery, cross-searching and interoperability with other relevant archives in the UK, Europe and the United States of America.



NB

1. You will be able to deduce the DNA & biology for ANY person who's lived.

2. You will be able to deduce the ENVIRONMENT that shaped him.

It must follow that you will be able to deduce thoughts, which are physical brain manifestations.

Introspection, including in the mother's womb, is determined by what came before.

Non-determinism has yet to be physically proved although it is advanced in statistical theory

Whether or not non-determinism is or no doesn't alter Quantum Archaeology because laws will still govern the world and from discovery of those laws comes prediction and retrodiction.

Laws are just happenings that can be put into groups.

That reduces calculation time.

There's a short story called the Quantum Archeologist on line somewhere.

Edited by stopgam, 20 May 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[platypus]

No amount of processing power can solve the problem of underdetermination.

[Julia36]

No amount of processing power can solve the problem of underdetermination.

"In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence." wiki

I'll side step this because belief is irrelevant.

WE know logic shows what a result can be whenever it's valid.

That means if you know the positions and you know the laws you can logically calculate when the result is going to be.

This works also with retrodiction, ie you can calculate logically what the past was.

Belief is irrelevant to this process which is proven in Newtonian and Relativity.



In the quantum world we have a major problem.

Explanations pop up that it is doing stuff contra causation, and spooky, and that a new physics must exist.

Nobel physicist 'tHooft is sure its still causal (Superdeterminism...thanks)

He also states quantum mechanics is a statistics, because we aren't doing physics yet (presumably)

The explanations in QT like things spontaneously popping into being and synchronising with no causality nor link between them is bilge:

We are running ahead of the facts and hypothesising...a great error (Sherlock Homes)



but based on the first great forensic surgeon Joseph Bell, Doyle's tutor.

I saw physicists in my era stating confidently that the universe poppped into being from no cause.

M Theory shows otherwise now, and the first evidence for it just proffered by analysis of the recent cosmic map (ie many universes exist) from the Planck Observatory:



this:



The universe did NOT in fact just pop into being from nothing, but bubbled off when 2 infinite branes collided (Ed Witten)

===> CAUSATION.

I have no truck with quantum mechanics it works as statistical theory with intensely accurate PROBABILITY.



But we dont know what is going on in the quantum world and it is, I restate, a mistake to hypothesise in advance of the facts.


Cause and Effect and indeed so-called non-deterministic laws (an oxymoron if there ever was one)
must operate with reference to other things.

EVERYTHING is governed by laws that is provable. Stiff that isn't i just conjecture IMO


This is the universe:




It seems to me unassailable that where there is laws, there is prediction.

However, non-causal laws could exist I suppose, but that remains to be proved.

Meanwhile I'll take explanations that have proof.

Probability is a great thing.


None of this invalidates resurrection BTW

Laws = prediction = retrodiction.

We KNOW because we've done experiments that quantum systems are absolutely reversible.

we can play them backwards (when unobserved).


Secondly there is a DETERMINISTIC --cause & Effect quantum explanation Many World THoery (wiki) of what;s going on.


So i would argue that beleif is irrelvant because we can make technology. In quantum machines...being made since 2010..wwe're using probability to construct. So what?

Great.

Cause & Effect are logic, and maths (computers are living maths) can do anything describable.

Scientist go nuts periodically ans come up with mad ideas like flat earth flogeston spontaneous combustion, and spontaneous creation.

Chaos doesn't exist...it is a biblical terms...everything by order number and measurement.

When we raise the dead ...inevitable....men will still say 'these are not the true people back!

Edited by stopgam, 22 May 2013 - 01:57 AM.

[platypus]

No amount of processing power can solve the problem of underdetermination.

"In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence." wiki

I'll side step this because belief is irrelevant.

WE know logic shows what a result can be whenever it's valid.

That means if you know the positions and you know the laws you can logically calculate when the result is going to be.

This works also with retrodiction, ie you can calculate logically what the past was.

Underdetermination follows from logic. If you don't have enough information, you don't have enough.

But we dont know what is going on in the quantum world and it is, I restate, a mistake to hypothesise in advance of the facts.

This is very interesting: https://en.wikipedia...tum_Bayesianism

Secondly there is a DETERMINISTIC --cause & Effect quantum explanation Many World THoery (wiki) of what;s going on.

Quantum Bayesianism seems much more reasonable than the many-worlds interpretation IMO.

Cause & Effect are logic, and maths (computers are living maths) can do anything describable.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, is there someone here who understands theoretical computer science (I don't)? Turing-machines are not omnipotent.

https://en.wikipedia...mputable_number
https://en.wikipedia...efinable_number

Chaos doesn't exist...it is a biblical terms...everything by order number and measurement.

That's dogma from your part, not science.

Edited by platypus, 24 May 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Julia36]

No amount of processing power can solve the problem of underdetermination.

"In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence." wiki

I'll side step this because belief is irrelevant.

WE know logic shows what a result can be whenever it's valid.

That means if you know the positions and you know the laws you can logically calculate when the result is going to be.

This works also with retrodiction, ie you can calculate logically what the past was.

Underdetermination follows from logic. If you don't have enough information, you don't have enough.

But we dont know what is going on in the quantum world and it is, I restate, a mistake to hypothesise in advance of the facts.

This is very interesting: https://en.wikipedia...tum_Bayesianism

Secondly there is a DETERMINISTIC --cause & Effect quantum explanation Many World THoery (wiki) of what;s going on.

Quantum Bayesianism seems much more reasonable than the many-worlds interpretation IMO.

Cause & Effect are logic, and maths (computers are living maths) can do anything describable.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, is there someone here who understands theoretical computer science (I don't)? Turing-machines are not omnipotent.

https://en.wikipedia...mputable_number
https://en.wikipedia...efinable_number

Chaos doesn't exist...it is a biblical terms...everything by order number and measurement.

That's dogma from your part, not science.

It's important not to use sophistry rather than philosophy, Platypus.

Which belief system we use is irrelevant.

Underdeterminism means no belief system can be used when there is not enough knowledge?
Fine
but we know causation can trace much of the data we need for resurrection.

The other bits will come from emerging science.

In that sense QA is an argument to the future and would be banned in philosophy, except this is futurism:
we try to make more accurate predictive models.


Technology and maths are accelerating.

In ten years our world may be bizare to us now.

In the last 20 years we have moved online, biomedicine is breaking, nano-machines are worked on, and Quantum Computers have been sold commercially.

Teleportation has been achieved, 3D printers are spreading, energy is being addressed with tumbling solar prices, and self-driving cars and private space/earth flights have begun.

That seems fast, but we are on a demonstrable double exponential log curve.

eg



this can read for teachnology on the vertical against time on the bottan.

The speed at which inventions are coming is very fast.

It remains to be seen if Machine Intelligence will be able to gather and use the discoveries but it'll be better than men can, and will accelerate itself in the 2020's according to A.I,.workers.

Cryonicists and Quantum Archaeologists will work together...under any names...for data recovery and reassembly.

We'll resurrect the animal kingdom too - not just cats and dogs, but everything that have ever lived,

not by genre, but by individuals.

We can do loads of the work now in Newtonian physics graphs.

Our mathematics is being mechanised.

The chances of us resurrecting ALL the dead are NIL.




It logically couldn't happen given a multiverse.


The quantum world works by laws, ipso facto it is retrodictable.


There's a MASSIVE tech wave coming, which takes us up to a Type I civilisation.








I

soory I haven't addressed your questions. I dont know. Someone into logik could.

You should definitely get cryonically suspended anyhow.

But the dead will rise
as part of Quantum Archaeology

[Julia36]

Everything that exists are the results of laws interacting.
What is true for the physics is true for the chemistry, is true for the biochemistry, is true for the sperm the cell, the body and for the group and Civilisation.

We exist by LAW.

ALL laws are, logically, limits. At the boundaries is repulsion or attraction - only by other laws..

It is unfounded to assert because we are human beings the laws of physics dont apply to us and we have free will, consciousness, a soul, our memories are beyond archaeology.


From strings to quarks to atoms to organisms the laws of physics rule.

The virus is capable of being non living and also living.
Finding those laws gives us predictability, into the future and the past.

Edited by stopgam, 26 May 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[platypus]

It seems to me that your imagined QA-system should be able to predict the future perfectly. That can be very useful, unless it leads to nasty paradoxes.

[Julia36]

No I dont, because @ present it seems the future has many more branches that our linear past.

However the past has fewer events than the present.

Logically there must be many more starting points in the present to trace back to common pasts.

It is relatively easier to draw the past.

But if everything works by laws we can say SOME things about the future using probability eg Moore's Law

[Julia36]

Quantum Archaeology at the edges:



New York Times :
Computer Network Piecing Together a Jigsaw of Jewish Lore

Now, for the first time, a sophisticated artificial intelligence program running on a powerful computer network is conducting 4.5 trillion calculations per second to vastly narrow down the possibilities.
http://www.nytimes.c...ytimestech&_r=0

Itls great: the future's the past!

[platypus]

No I dont, because @ present it seems the future has many more branches that our linear past.

However the past has fewer events than the present.

Logically there must be many more starting points in the present to trace back to common pasts.

It is relatively easier to draw the past.

But if everything works by laws we can say SOME things about the future using probability eg Moore's Law

But in the present moment it's at least theoretically possible to record "enough" information to fully predict the future (if classical chaos and QM are ignored (wholly unrealistic but can be done for the sake of argument)), while records of the past contain only an infinitesimally small fraction of the required info (underdetermination).

Edited by platypus, 27 May 2013 - 03:27 PM.

[Julia36]

No I dont, because @ present it seems the future has many more branches that our linear past.

However the past has fewer events than the present.

Logically there must be many more starting points in the present to trace back to common pasts.

It is relatively easier to draw the past.

But if everything works by laws we can say SOME things about the future using probability eg Moore's Law

But in the present moment it's at least theoretically possible to record "enough" information to fully predict the future (if classical chaos and QM are ignored (wholly unrealistic but can be done for the sake of argument)), while records of the past contain only an infinitesimally small fraction of the required info (underdetermination).

In theory you could have the variables to plot the future.

In practice you would run into the combinatorial explosion....the futher into the future you go because the universe is expanding) the more data is created..

(This is not the case going back in time)



eg map above Each event in the past can be laid out by the laws of physics.
causation/probability/sampling other data describing a map per moment.

They are superimposed (computers can do trillions of calculations per moment and the number is increasing on an accelerating increase.

Top 500 computer list (world's fastest computers ) June 1993

http://www.top500.org/lists/1993/06/

Nov 2012 ( 10 years later)

http://www.top500.org/lists/2012/11/




The graph isn't a straight line but a double exponent.


We have hit the knee of the curve IMO, other computing paradigms/technologies come into play big time, and the data we can calculate is increasing rapidly

The NASA GOOGLE Quantum Computer lab pretty immediately boosts the calculation speed 30,000 times, but it will be MUCH faster.

Even with these, doing the future looks insurmountably difficult

http://en.wikipedia....orial_explosion

"In mathematics a combinatorial explosion describes the effect of functions that grow very rapidly as a result of combinatorial considerations."


(Data increases into the future like bacteria. Afraid we're the elephants!...we can never catch up)





However I may be too cautious and you should certainly try to figure a maths to solve it symbolically.

Edited by Innocent, 28 May 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Julia36]

The issue's data manipulation.

[Julia36]

Data can be written in maths or geometry and converted to images so we can pattern spot.
Machine intelligence is just starting on this but its going to be the biggest area, and they will do it at speeds thought imposoble to imagine for us:

T

he difference between what we can do with maths now and in 5 years is going to be enormous:

90% of all information data in history was generated in the last 24 months.
(I'm just learning about image posting here:)

Edited by Innocent, 28 May 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[platypus]

It's funny you see the combinatorial explosion as a problem when predicting the future, while you will have exactly the same problem when simulating futures in the past. Your QA system needs to be able to accurately "predict the future" at least for a limited period (days, years, centuries?), otherwise there is no way you can simulate over time-periods where no data is available to give you any hints about what is going on. In particular, the system should be able to predict the thoughts of any single person into the future, and possible for long periods (two people lock themselves into a information-proof room and discuss matters of great importance - your system must predict the future mental states of these people from the moment they close the door to the moment the emerge from the room, otherwise QA fails). This is just one of the reasons why I think QA is ridiculously impossible, just about equally impossible than simulating the future.

I don't think mathematics will change much at all in 5 years, and computers are just a few doublings faster, which won't solve the problem of deterministic chaos.

Edited by platypus, 28 May 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Julia36]

It's funny you see the combinatorial explosion as a problem when predicting the future, while you will have exactly the same problem when simulating futures in the past.

No. It;s massively different.

We branch as we age in the universe= less data as time goes backwards.

Exactly the opposite is true going into the future. More data as we go forward.

>>>>
Your QA system needs to be able to accurately "predict the future" at least for a limited period (days, years, centuries?), otherwise there is no way you can simulate over time-periods where no data is available to give you any hints about what is going on. In particular, the system should be able to predict the thoughts of any single person into the future, and possible for long periods <<<<

It has nothing to do with the future: it is archaeology.



>>>>(two people lock themselves into a information-proof room and discuss matters of great importance - your system must predict the future mental states of these people from the moment they close the door to the moment the emerge from the room, otherwise QA fails). This is just one of the reasons why I think QA is ridiculously impossible, just about equally impossible than simulating the future.<<<<

That's a bit muddled. Could you simplify your argument?

Viewed from the present which is where we have to be, the future is vast but the past is small.

We have already calculated back to big bang and have computer models describing the past universe with trillions of moving points...planets stars etc They are crude compared to where mega computers will generate in years to come.







Secondly there is no such closed room in the universe. Everything is linked to everything else.

The prior states would be known or configurable.

Also there are pre-past and adjacent states.

I wonder if you're trapped in the free will consciousness arguments which are spurious and wrongly think properties of the mind are not properties of the brain, which are properties of biochemistry which are properties of physics and describable with reference to their laws?




>>>>>I don't think mathematics will change much at all in 5 years, and computers are just a few doublings faster, which won't solve the problem of deterministic chaos.
<<<<<<

No not doublings...the trend is double acceleration and that cant be grasped intuitively.


It's a matter of finding the dynamic (moving) points for required events...whether those events are stars or quanta


Consider this muybridge horse from the early days of photography:





You can see a picture is also equations of space-time coordinate points and you can graph all them them in 4 dimensional graphs.

The whole quantum Archaeology grid is massive...like an ephemeris for figuring where variables where in the past.

quantumarchaeology grid



the epheneris from the prescience- of occult astrology in which Newton was adept, is a mix of geometry and statistics number theory


have the ephemeris files for 6,000 years, and this (charting the movements of some of the planets in the solar system) will be added to the zillions of other data bases, and merged into the QA grid.


arch iot wont post

here's a page from an ephemeris:



Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammadi bn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī c 780 C.E.

[Julia36]

It is my belief that we can calculate the history of every drop/molecule and atom of the oceans
with coming computers (which are mechanical mathematics).

Maxwell said it was impossible in the Victorian era, but the vast problems computers and super-recursive algorithms may do must encompass the earth and its oceans.

Edited by Innocent, 28 May 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[platypus]

It is my belief that we can calculate the history of every drop/molecule and atom of the oceans
with coming computers (which are mechanical mathematics).

Your belief is based on ignorance and wishful thinking, I'm sorry to say. The world does not seem to be constructed in a way that would make your visions possible.

ps. can you list a some things that you think will stay impossible forever? "Anything will be possible in the future" is not a very rational stance IMO.

[platypus]

>>>>
Your QA system needs to be able to accurately "predict the future" at least for a limited period (days, years, centuries?), otherwise there is no way you can simulate over time-periods where no data is available to give you any hints about what is going on. In particular, the system should be able to predict the thoughts of any single person into the future, and possible for long periods <<<<

It has nothing to do with the future: it is archaeology.

Time does not really exist. The future and the past are equally real. QA needs to simulate futures for people who are in the past.

>>>>(two people lock themselves into a information-proof room and discuss matters of great importance - your system must predict the future mental states of these people from the moment they close the door to the moment the emerge from the room, otherwise QA fails). This is just one of the reasons why I think QA is ridiculously impossible, just about equally impossible than simulating the future.<<<<

That's a bit muddled. Could you simplify your argument?

Could you explain how you will "simulate" what an _isolated_ person will think about without simulating their "future" from the last moment you could observe them? This is no different from predicting the future thoughts of you from the moment you enter an isolation tank. Good luck with that.

Secondly there is no such closed room in the universe. Everything is linked to everything else.

The information you need is flying away at the speed of light. Did you place quasi-infinite detectors at the end of space-time to catch this data? If not, QA is toast.

The prior states would be known or configurable.

Wrong. You won't have the information about prior states since it flew away at practically the speed of light, which ensures that you will NEVER catch it.

[Julia36]

It is my belief that we can calculate the history of every drop/molecule and atom of the oceans
with coming computers (which are mechanical mathematics).

Your belief is based on ignorance and wishful thinking, I'm sorry to say. The world does not seem to be constructed in a way that would make your visions possible.

ps. can you list a some things that you think will stay impossible forever? "Anything will be possible in the future" is not a very rational stance IMO.

you cant use ad hominem's Platypus: I dont know if you are referring to quantum theory? But we dont use quantum theory to implant neurons into brains, nor input data into non-quantum computers.

THe quantum world needs to be denoued and is still mysterious, but some good minds believe the world is deterministic.

Quam Theory or Classic, quantum archaeology is NOT dismissed by either since predictions demonstrably possible in both, although only being done probabilistically in quantum theory at present.

3D printing is nearly user friendly...it involves a 3D scanner as well.
we are starting to prototype non-invasive body brain scanning. That logically means we will be able to brak the brain down into maths, which will help us plot and reconstruct from cryo-suspension.




actual buy-able 3d scanner
http://www.matterform.net/our-scanner/

Once you've scanned it it;s online and you can send it to any scanner in the world.
We're not 5 years away from printing very complex assemblers that print very complex 3d assemblers 9printers)

and not 40 years away IMO". Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"

from printing any living human being you want in your apartment.


This is being done in light, surface holography right now, full substance apparitions require accurate scanning and assembly (3D scan & 3D printing)





Microsoft patent:

"A data-holding subsystem holding instructions executable by a logic subsystem is provided. The instructions are configured to output a primary image to a primary display for display by the primary display, and output a peripheral image to an environmental display for projection by the environmental display on an environmental surface of a display environment so that the peripheral image appears as an extension of the primary image.
"How did I get here...and you'd better have a good explanation, Geek"


My views may be heresy to you at present , but they will become standard as science progresses IMO


++++++

To break the laws physics may be impossible for ever. But we are constrained by the Notions we intellectualise in, and that includes our knowledge of the laws of physics.

Edited by Innocent, 28 May 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[platypus]

THe quantum world needs to be denoued and is still mysterious, but some good minds believe the world is deterministic.

Most good minds believe otherwise, though.

Can you reply to my points about you not having a detector grid at the end of the universe, as well as QA needing to be able to predict the future (or at least futures that happen to actors in the past)?

[Julia36]

THe quantum world needs to be denoued and is still mysterious, but some good minds believe the world is deterministic.

Most good minds believe otherwise, though.

Agreed. There are many difficulties. The chief one is we cant observe clearly in the quantum realm. Our success there comes from statistics.

Also Quantum Theory and Relativity are in conflict. They cant both be true. we can observe Relativity: we cant observe quantum experiments.

"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks" Albert Einstein.

It is like man trying to patch a sinking boat. However QA is not dependent on it being true or false. So long at it has laws we'll retrodict.

BTW retrodiction is a term you may mean for predicting into the past.

Can you reply to my points about you not having a detector grid at the end of the universe

Pray clarify what you mean.

as well as QA needing to be able to predict the future (or at least futures that happen to actors in the past)?

I dont understand what ur saying.

The past and the future are similar in that they operate by the laws of physics. but they are not the same to us.

They are more difficult to discern and the future looks impossible to discern longer term - that's why we talk of the Singularity, which is the event horizon and it always recedes.

We have no traces of the future in the present, though we have artefacts from the past in the present.

One can argue the whole of the present must be contain in the present from which it it seeded.

However the chief problem lies in the vastness of data in the future.

Some physicists believe the universe is finite but unbounded. Others that t will collapse, others that it will become something that converts to intelligent matter.





Tipler has tried to show what it will become and he too is a good mind.

But we deal with just 4% of the universe: 96% is unknown to our physics.

That does NOT mean we cant get ascendency on the past by hypercomputing and coming sciences. At worst we would eventually inflate in complexity that the past seems very easy to reconfigure for us.


But at best we will begin resurrections in 15-40 years, because of double exponential speeding of technology.


Your ideas sound quite good if you would simplify them so a child can understand it would be helpful for me.



These are just my opinions but we have already begun computerizing Archaeology.




These are animated Gifs and not videos.

We are prototyping basic haptic technologies so in a few years you'll be able to feel these moving images on the screen: the screen will come out and do things in your apartment.

the next big phase shift will be Robotics.

Then Medicine, then AI

Edited by Innocent, 28 May 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[Lister]

I have a feeling that one day this revolutionary idea that no one had ever heard of will be introduced and it will change our whole concept of the world. I feel like that idea will be an advanced form of the idea presented on the many pages of this thread (or something like it).

The ideas here are insane, they're wishful thinking; they're nearly everything that platypus says. Thing is though Galileo’s idea’s were equally insane at the time and so were Tesla’s just as any other great thinker. If there were a Galileo level thinker among us here that were ready to strip away the obvious and think so dramatically outside the box as Innocent is on this thread I wouldn’t be surprised if they received the same reception as Innocent.

You’re bonkers Innocent and good on you for it. Don’t let the dusty old traditional thinkers, who think themselves to be the stewards of sanity, from venturing beyond the rational into a whole new way of thinking.

[platypus]

Also Quantum Theory and Relativity are in conflict. They cant both be true. we can observe Relativity: we cant observe quantum experiments.

Yes we can and do observe quantum experiments all the time and the world works as the theory predicts. We're missing a quantum theory of gravity at this stage though.

"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks" Albert Einstein.

The interpretations of QM have evolved since Einstein.

It is like man trying to patch a sinking boat. However QA is not dependent on it being true or false. So long at it has laws we'll retrodict.

You really don't seem to get that underdetermination is a problem. Heck, it can be mathematically proven that underdetermined problems cannot be solved unambiguously. You're basically saying that "magic" will solve this problem for us.

Can you reply to my points about you not having a detector grid at the end of the universe

Pray clarify what you mean.

As I pointed out, the information about what is happening flies away from us almost at the speed of light. Since you cannot catch things that go that fast, you need to have a all-encompassing pre-installed flawless detector-system in place countless of light-years from us. It can be safely stated that such a system will never be built.

as well as QA needing to be able to predict the future (or at least futures that happen to actors in the past)?

I dont understand what ur saying.

How do you predict what Mozart said in a private discussion of which no records exist? Your only chance is to simulate Mozart's brain-state at the atomic level when he enters the room and then simulate his future from that moment onward. This is for all practical purposes

We have no traces of the future in the present, though we have artefacts from the past in the present.

Artefacts that are not enough to avoid underdetermination.

One can argue the whole of the present must be contain in the present from which it it seeded.

That is what you have to do for Mozart. good luck with that.

[ben951]

Top 500 computer list (world's fastest computers ) June 1993

http://www.top500.org/lists/1993/06/

Nov 2012 ( 10 years later)

http://www.top500.org/lists/2012/11/

Isn't this 20 years later ?

How do you predict what Mozart said in a private discussion of which no records exist? Your only chance is to simulate Mozart's brain-state at the atomic level when he enters the room and then simulate his future from that moment onward. This is for all practical purposes

Actually I think record exist of those conversation even if we're not able to play them back yet.

Did you hear about the Phonautogram for instance:

The phonautograph is the earliest known device for recording sound. Previously, tracings had been obtained of the sound-producing vibratory motions of tuning forks and other objects by physical contact with them
Several phonautograms recorded before 1861 were successfully played as sound in 2008 by optically scanning them and using a computer to process the scans into digital audio files
Previously, the earliest known recording of vocal music was an 1888 Edison wax cylinder phonograph recording of a Handel choral concert.

http://en.wikipedia....ecovered_sounds

Or Archaeoacoustics

An early interpretation of the idea of archaeoacoustics was that it explored acoustic phenomena encoded in ancient artifacts. For instance, the idea that a pot or vase could be read. like a gramophone record or phonograph cylinder for messages from the past, sounds encoded into the turning clay as the pot was thrown.

http://en.wikipedia....rchaeoacoustics
I think at a deeper (smaller) level it might work too even if there's no wet surface around, sound wave interact with object and modify them.

Edited by ben951, 29 May 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Julia36]

I have a feeling that one day this revolutionary idea that no one had ever heard of will be introduced and it will change our whole concept of the world. I feel like that idea will be an advanced form of the idea presented on the many pages of this thread (or something like it).

The ideas here are insane, they're wishful thinking; they're nearly everything that platypus says. Thing is though Galileo’s idea’s were equally insane at the time and so were Tesla’s just as any other great thinker. If there were a Galileo level thinker among us here that were ready to strip away the obvious and think so dramatically outside the box as Innocent is on this thread I wouldn’t be surprised if they received the same reception as Innocent.

You’re bonkers Innocent and good on you for it. Don’t let the dusty old traditional thinkers, who think themselves to be the stewards of sanity, from venturing beyond the rational into a whole new way of thinking.

Hi Lister,

Revolutionary indeed.

The idea man never dies and HAS never died, must sink into the psyche and make profound changes.

The argument that death gives life meaning is shown to be ;limited (immorallife.info, articles) and also see

google The Lazarus Long Delusion

You are indeed correct I submit only a top level idea structure which needs to be run with.

The prize is astonishing though...not actual immortality which IO see as inevitable...I see no scientific rebuttal of Quantum Archaeology- despite some great (some famous1) minds looking at it...

The prize is the shift in the human psyche.

I wish cryonicists, famous for bloody-minded resolve in the face of ridicule- would realise that QA and Cryonics must take the same path...assembly by coming microrobics and data manipulation, for successful recoveries.

I'm amazed that religions have got there before us in resurrection when there was just no science to suggest it could happen. It would be foolish for science to veto all religions, but we should rethink our relationship with them. we may be doing very different things - both essential for survival

[Julia36]

Also Quantum Theory and Relativity are in conflict. They cant both be true. we can observe Relativity: we cant observe quantum experiments.

Yes we can and do observe quantum experiments all the time and the world works as the theory predicts. We're missing a quantum theory of gravity at this stage though.

I'll preface my reply by dismissing quantum immortality by suicide at nuts, as a lot of people get this wrong.:



Killing yourself in one world to leap into the next is muddled thinking using Many Worlds,: (you would just kill your self in one world: also the theory is incapable of falsification etc so is not a scientific theory).

The idea of consciousness assumes a continuum whereas it branches as everything else that is physical.

QA is not an argument from many worlds but from classical physics, and Tipler has shown that Relativity is inevitably deduced from Newtonian physics (see video Turing Church Workshop 2011).



Platypus,

I think your main objection is centred round the quantum theory. That is a very hard area as we do not yet have a quantum physics, just a quantum statistics on

https://sites.google...tumarchaeology/

I state:

3. Objection: Quantum Theory proves Cause & Effect are obsolete so we'll never know the past.*
Defeat: The quantum world has rules and laws , therefore it should logically be predictable. We are making quantum machines and computers which make the most accurate predictions in science using quantum probability. The quest is on to find the laws. Quantum theory objection to quantum archaeology is an argument which can be reduced to amounts of calculation possible. The question 'can we make calculations on quantum scales that are exhaustive' is the revamped old philosophical argument on infinite regress. We do not need infinitely small calculations but only ones good enough the describe body brain states. Further we are not trying to capture the actual atoms and sub-particles from the required dead brain, but only to calculate what it must have been, and a quantum system has been calculated to be absolutely reversible since at least 1985 && , and subsequently proven experimentally.

Superdeterminist physics nobel laureates like Einstein and Gerad 'tHooft hold the entire universe is causal, though tHooft that each event is unique.>


Many scholars seem horrified at the size of calculations in quantum mechanics, but it can be shown: the amount we can sum grows on an accelerating trajectory. Thus at some stage we should be able to calculate enough.

Most quantum archaeology does not need to go quantumly small scale to complete its grid, and most quantum theory may be irrelevant to it: 5 nanometres is the smallest relevant size. Where laws exist, prediction and retrodiction are thought possible and even in Quantum Theory the world works by laws. Geometrical lines of intersection will be constructed, proving events from the Records, and this has already been done successfully is some cases past 100 million years. The size of the event does not make it inaccessible, but involves more calculations.

Additionally, the world of quantum theory can be described as a purely cause and effect system using the Many Worlds Interpretation¬¬ and Einstein might be right: causality underpins all nature. Brilliant probability science giving astoundingly good statistical predictions is a triumph for probability science not a refutation of determinism.> MWI dismisses probability cloud observer collapses by quantum decoherence. Even allowing quantum probability alone, closed and unobserved quantum systems are demonstrated to be both predictable and reversible. (See also 2012 Nobel Physics Prize"for ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems"). Debate rages about how to capture the laws of the quantum realm, and camps traditionally oppose each other, some believing causation, existing, too complex, too quick for mankind. Nature has had infinite time for infinitely deep complexity predating our universe. Einstein was more hopeful of finding a way and dismissed some quantum explanations as a lack of perspective. Quantum Theory and Relativity contradict each other: they cant both be right, and Relativity is both observable and proven correct.





* Quantum Theory a serious objection to Quantum Archaeology. If the quantum world is random, then nothing is predictable in it. However we are already making successful probabilistic predictions in the quantum world, and systems have already been built achieving reliable results. It is easy to see how people think information could be lost into such a world but it's mysteries will fall to denouement as its laws are recorded. The moment prediction is viable we should attempt retrodiction, - both are available in closed quantum systems. The best position may be to just describe what is useful in the quantum and to delay explanations.

> 1. Nobel Prize winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft has "deviating views on the physical interpretation of quantum theory".He believes that there should be a deterministic theory underlying quantum mechanics.^[31] Using a toy model he has argued that such a theory could avoid the usual Bell inequality arguments that would disallow such a local hidden variable theory.".wiki

and

> 2. On Superdeterminism: Gerard 't Hooft "...the only reasonable view on the laws of nature is that they determine everything that happens, uniquely. This insight is necessary if you want to understand what is going on in a quantum system, in particular when you have entangled particles. However, this does not imply that the future is "predictable" in any way. Nature itself is the fastest calculator there is, and no one will ever beat that, apart from making statistical statements. That's what qm is." (to me -2013). This argument on limits is argument from size of calculations and (future) inflation. We can also assume we can describe the environment we live in by finding shortcuts to data aggregations and patterns that repeat. These are the laws of physics that will be delivered increasingly by coming accelerating intelligence. t'Hooft has attacked labeling in philosophy and seems to be arguing from set theory.

¬¬ See also The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (wiki) that resolves the central paradoxes and is absolutely a determinist theory, Cause and Effect in the quantum realm, rejecting the weirdness of the observer effect in favour of quantum decoherence, a splitting of worlds.

""Many Worlds Interpretaion removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process by replacing wavefunction collapse with quantum decoherence. Since the role of the observer lies at the heart of most if not all "quantum paradoxes," this automatically resolves a number of problems; see for example Schrödinger's cat thought-experiment, the EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality. Quantum cosmology also becomes intelligible, since there is no need anymore for an observer outside of the universe.

• The Many Worlds interpretation is a realist, deterministic, local theory, akin to classical physics (including the theory of relativity), at the expense of losing counterfactual definiteness. MWI achieves this by removing wavefunction collapse, which is indeterministic and non-local, from the deterministic and local equations of quantum theory. ^(wiki)

&& Quantum Theory, the Church-Turing Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer - Proceedings of the Royal Society 1985 David Deutsch : " Because of unitarity, the dynamics of 2L, as of any closed quantum system, are necessarily reversible."

From the Everett theory it;s pretty easy to show the world like a cell dividing...events taking alternate paths.

This is consistent with biology but new to physics.

Quantum Archaeology will do most of its work in Newtonian mechanics and very little in the quantum world.

the human relevant sizes...including of memories as we presently understand them, is between one meter (body) and 5 nanometres in length.

1.616199(97)×10−35 metres

Quantum gravity is interesting...but science unification will have to take place or we will have failed top understand physics.

Edited by Innocent, 30 May 2013 - 09:11 AM.

[Julia36]

Top 500 computer list (world's fastest computers ) June 1993

http://www.top500.org/lists/1993/06/

Nov 2012 ( 10 years later)

http://www.top500.org/lists/2012/11/

Isn't this 20 years later ?

How do you predict what Mozart said in a private discussion of which no records exist? Your only chance is to simulate Mozart's brain-state at the atomic level when he enters the room and then simulate his future from that moment onward. This is for all practical purposes

Actually I think record exist of those conversation even if we're not able to play them back yet.

Did you hear about the Phonautogram for instance:

The phonautograph is the earliest known device for recording sound. Previously, tracings had been obtained of the sound-producing vibratory motions of tuning forks and other objects by physical contact with them
Several phonautograms recorded before 1861 were successfully played as sound in 2008 by optically scanning them and using a computer to process the scans into digital audio files
Previously, the earliest known recording of vocal music was an 1888 Edison wax cylinder phonograph recording of a Handel choral concert.

http://en.wikipedia....ecovered_sounds

Or Archaeoacoustics

An early interpretation of the idea of archaeoacoustics was that it explored acoustic phenomena encoded in ancient artifacts. For instance, the idea that a pot or vase could be read. like a gramophone record or phonograph cylinder for messages from the past, sounds encoded into the turning clay as the pot was thrown.

http://en.wikipedia....rchaeoacoustics
I think at a deeper (smaller) level it might work too even if there's no wet surface around, sound wave interact with object and modify them.

Thanks for this.

Yes I was aware of recovering sounds, and John Wheeler (nobel physicist) was briefly into it. I didn't know it had advanced so much.

Information is incapable fo being destroyed, that is the deepest physics I know" Prof Leonard Susskind, Stanford.

Sound is obviously vibration (most things are) so if someone was drawing a paint brush and talking, in theory you should be able to play back what they said, with sensitive enough equipment.

This holds true for any mark that is being made, eg a pyramid block being drawn up a slope should have the sounds of the Egyptians


or better still any clay pots we have from ancient history could reveal their language on the same principle as a dvd is recorded (hands instead of lasers).

This helps build up the quantumarchaeology grid from which we will deduce Human resurrection.

[platypus]

Information is incapable fo being destroyed, that is the deepest physics I know" Prof Leonard Susskind, Stanford.

So do you have the set of perfect detectors at the edge of the universe to catch this info? Ich don't think so.