Underdeterminism just mean not enough ionfomation to construct a valdi theory, as I understand it..or enlighten me?
Yes. For example lets say that initially there were 50 integers, which were added together. You only know that their sum is 701. It is mathematically/logically impossible for you to retrieve those 50 integers from their sum only, no matter how much computing power you have. Nature is full of situations like this every moment everywhere.
Thanks for your doggedness, Platypus. I apologize the spell checker has refused to work just for this site, so you'll have to do archaeology on what was in my miond when I mistyped:
The Pauli exclusion principle as your will have noted answers this point ie two thins cant occupy the space space-time or no two things are identical. Why on earth do you think this doesn't apply to information time lines???
I dont know enough about Quantum Theory to rebuff the many challenges from it.
It is supremely adroit statistical success.
However I dunno anyone who knows enough about Quantum Theory to answer fundamental issues in it.
I have to be guided by great minds in physics as I am ignorant of most of it.
0. Einstein, aware of the quantum theory in great detail, was sure the world was set by Cause and Effect and he made a prediction that he would be proved roght
1. Gerad tHooft (Nobel Prize 1999) emailed (see page 1/9 Quantum Archaeology (google sites) that the underlying nature of the world is Cause and Effect
2. Michael Clive Price who kindly crammed me through some physics (he wrote the FAQ Many Worlds Theory) assures me the world is cause and effect even at the quantum level (which is part of the micro level and not exhaustive)
3. Prof Susskind " Stanford says online (cited in the thread on Youtiue link) that information is incapable of being destroyed. However he also said to me that he's be surprized if Superdeterminism is correct, adding he'd probably be surprized by whatever is correct in quantum theory
4, Prof Frank J Tipler in the Turing Church last year (online) states that Einstein's work is inevitable deduction from Newton's and emailed back to me some years ago that we were saying the same thing (QA does not assume a closed/finite universe though)
5. Prof Robert Ettinger emailed me (cited in this thread or in Google sites Quantum Archaeology) that he believed there was a Law of Conservation of Information (the creationist William Dembski http://www.evolution...671.html cites Tom English's use of the term (No Free Lunch ie information cant just disappear since the laws of the universe dont suddenly stop working thru long time or great complexity? I may have that wrong as I cant read it presently)
It makes sense to me that nothing can be created not destroyed and that information can not be destroyed since motion always has to exist (as far as we know) for a thing to exist.
There may well be other laws of physics which are astounding.
But they will have to be laws and not ...--->>>>>what exactly are u going to replace the laws of the universe with????<<<<<----
We have the word 'chaos; from biblical sources meaning destruction into eternal fires. There is no such thing. The universe visibly recycles everything. Information is now thought to escape even from black holes where it previously (biblically?) was thought to perish for ever!
I Ma not against religion...but I haven't cited it ONCE in my paper, However it must be corrected where wrong, and so must science It is staggering that Christianity has envisioned the physical resurrection of the dead Buddhism doesn't. Nothing is destroyable...only changeable.
6. It is reasonable to assume out world is a reflection of the true world. Nothing can spontaneously pop into being uncaused (another hangover from religion!)
If something is going to be obliterated, it has to be obliterated according to the laws of physics.
Are those reversible?
They are demonstrably restrodiuctable.
Further, we dont have to restrodict the entire universe only enough of it to make sense in information retrial to meso scales.
7. Cryonics is sensible. It would be foolish not to preserve as much information about your conscious mind (clearly contained in the brain/body) as you can.
But there is a real; argument from Quantum Archaeology that it may not be ESSENTIAL.
Only a fool would risk it,.
Cryoniocs addresses the about to die and a very few dead: Quantum Archaeology looks at resurrecting the already long dead.
8. Resurrection has already been achieved on ancient part micro-oranisms extinct for 10's of millions of years (references cited in this thread).
Forensics is becoming IT and its trajectory is heading to Moore's Law speed.
DNA, not just bone fragments of skull have now been shown to yield faces
This is presently conceptual but may become regimented and rigorous in forensic archaeology. .
QA is basically detective work on a massive scale possible with advancing computing.
Sherlock Homes maxims were drawn from Joseph Bell the Scotts surgeon who has clearly taken them from the great scientists like Newton and Galileo ('Never hypothesise in advance of the facts', Watson' is from Galileo's first maxim Observe THEN explain)
It is probably more foolish to believe you are capable of being destroyed when everywhere around infomation is retained as the laws of immutable physics.
There is more evidence that we will be resurrected that to believe we cold not be.
In fact to accept what is most probable based on the facts, is the modern equivalent in science of beliefing things.
The whole of archaeology on its glorious detective work is sure of one thing:
the past is reconstructible!
The American people should be told death is not a fixed state and nowhere does science allow for final states; & that the science is waiting to be seized if they will but reach for it.
The mummies—including three princesses—and other items date back to a pre-Inca culture called the Wari, who peaked between the seventh and 11th centuries, researchers said...." Dozens of mummies found in pre-Inca royal tomb in Peru
Cryonicists are likely to be raising the dead sooner than expected at this pace;
Mimicking Living Cells: Synthesizing Ribosomes
June 29, 2013 — Synthetic biology researchers at Northwestern University, working with partners at Harvard Medical School, have for the first time synthesized ribosomes -- cell structures responsible for generating all proteins and enzymes in our bodies -- from scratch in a test tube. Mimicking Living Cells: Synthesizing Ribosomes
We're all connected...everything that lives or has lived:
Like a chain reaction...everything moves on by the laws of physics
\So if you can grid that and grid in the environment....ignore how big thsi is..... You inevitably have every dead man and their thoughts which are obviously their biology X their environment.
Environmental Archaeology
Archaeology
" Archaeology seeks to understand human societies by studying their material remains. These remains might be individual artefacts, like tools, pots or ornaments, or might be entire landscapes, like gardens, agricultural fields or towns. Each type of object or place provides different information about the people who used or created it, and by weaving together these separate strands of information, archaeologists can assemble amazingly detailed accounts of human societies."
the environment will constructed from artefact in the Geological and other records, X the laws of physics
NO event happens in isolation ---that is impossible.
Every event affects i;s neighbours...but ABSOLUTELY & ONLY by the laws of science.
With artefacts (and records) you have readings of the past and also you have points in the present. That is loads more than enough data to grid back from to construct accurate simulations of history past 5 nanometres of human brain memories.
Simulations are really crude to what we'll do.
There is NOTHING here that can be done for real given time/progress in measurement and maths
Ion Channel (how the brain signals thought (CLICK TO ACTIVATE)
Once you have set the brain up and input the correct environment the thoughts MUST be those of the deceased.
this isn't mystical. It isn't hard either.
there's just a lot of it.
But we can calculate how much it is and what computing power we'll need.
MUCH COMPUTING POWER IS NEEDED?
We're probably looking at 10/\40 operations per second, as computers are currently constructed, though it is hard to see what inventions are coming many are likely to be more spectacular than the Internet as they build on innovative technology. The advent of post human general intelligence will change what we can do enormously and our forecasts may pale in comparison.
Astonishingly, calculations for the whole of human history have been done at Oxford by Professor Nick Bostrom in his famous paper: The Simulation Argument: "(for) a realistic simulation of human history...we can use ~10^33 - 10^36 operations as a rough estimate. As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements (100 billion humans50 years/human30 million secs/year[10^14, 10^17] operations in each human brain per second [10^33, 10^36] operations."
Quantum man is trillions of space-time points that will be mapped by coming computers in historical simulations.Then rebuilt by tiny robots.
and also: "a rough approximation of the computational power of a planetary-mass computer is 10^42 operations per second, and that assumes only already known nanotechnological designs, which are probably far from optimal. A single such a computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an ancestor-simulation) by using less than one millionth of its processing power for one second." Nick Bostrom, Oxford
WHEN will that be available?
By calculation 9based on my studies in Machine intelligence progress is in the 2020's.
Resurrection MUST follow in an infinite universe/multiverse/monoverse
whether or not mankind becomes extinct, because of the nature of probability. More correctly you could never rule it out ...ever.
If mankind survives, he will inevitably resurrect his dead.
Not only because its sentimental and romantic, but because altruism is built into life. You can see this everywhere in species self-sacrifice but also across species (as symbiosis).
Because of Accelerating skill in science there will be less difference between a resurrected YOU and an RNA copied YOU.
Scanning technology is coming so fast (neutron scanner in development) in years we should be able to scan to individual moving atoms AND LOG THEM ON GRAPHS in general hospitals.
There is a graph to be drawn in pictures about the distance and method we use to signal to one another..going to infinite distance (with entanglement).
from face to face communication:
letter writing, pigeon post, light signals /Morse code, flag semaphore
Mopre code was used for a small electric shock as well as light as light flashing. Whitehouse museum. Telegraph reception.
Transmission by radio waves as telephone merges with radio:
:
A computer is a telephone turning electric signals Data) into pictures.
SPEED OF PROGRESS
Quantum entanglement means instant transmission with no wires or waves!
A major telecommunications company gave us a lecture (they are [pioneering it in telecommunications and expect to entangle transmitter/receivers with no limit to numbers.
The whole internet would then move into the quantum world.
There is a further stage than entanglement some of us have toyed with, which is a futurist form of signalling. and faster than entanglement (which is already instant)
After that is The Singularity at which point you cant predict.
But until the Singularity, its information. .
My point (apart from playing around with this site and pictures) is that all these inventions - in fact EVERYTHING is convertible to Information. Until we plateau at the Singularity.
Once something converts to information, it drastically speeds the time you can manipulate it.
We will run out of future then and do ALL the past.
People who speculate on it think it will be at the end of the universe, but a singularity can be in the 2020's:allit needs is fast accelerating Superintelligence.
We are converting artefacts we discover to measurement (description) = information and will manipulate it back in time:
Recent find suggests mammoths hunted not for meat:
You will never be able to measure speed and position
As to the Uncertainty Principle Platypus,
There are ways coming...they have :always come...that will no doubt astound us. With new laws, new revelations, and ingenious techniques of working things out that seemed impossible
(Like calculating the approximate numbers of grains of sand on the beach, or predicting an eclipse)
" Encapsulating the strangeness of quantum mechanics is a single mathematical expression. According to every undergraduate physics textbook, the uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a subatomic particle — the more precisely one knows the particle’s position at a given moment, the less precisely one can know the value of its momentum. But the original version of the principle, put forward by physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, couches quantum indeterminism in a different way — as a fundamental limit to how well a detector can measure quantum properties. Heisenberg offered no direct proof for this version of his principle, and expressed his ideas “only informally and intuitively”, says physicist Jos Uffink of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
"Now researchers say that they have a formal proof. “Our work shows that you can’t measure something with an accuracy any better than the fundamental quantum uncertainty,” says Paul Busch, a theoretical physicist at the University of York, UK, who with his colleagues posted the proof on 6 June on the arXiv preprint server1. Not only does the work place this measurement aspect of the uncertainty principle on solid ground — something that researchers had started to question — but it also suggests that quantum-encrypted messages can be transmitted securely."
This now is what Heisenberg is being propped up with!
Max Plank was a church warden who was sure there was an intelligent mind behind fundamental forces, , Eddington was a quaker who had divine revelations, Heisenberg was an evangelic Lutheran: "thought continually about the philosophical implications of science. "It is in quantum theory," he claimed, "that the most fundamental changes with respect to the concept of reality have taken place, and in quantum theory in its final form the new ideas of atomic physics are concentrated and crystallized." "Atomic science has turned science away from the materialistic trend it had during the nineteenth century." He was quite in agreement with the abandonment of the causality principle in order to relate the solution of Schr6dinger's equation to observations."
"He was once asked by Pauli if he believed in a personal God. This was his reply: "Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term 'soul' quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes.""
He believed knowledge and faith were impossible to separate.
he has abandoned causality
The argument that many religious men made contributions wont do, because what that anti-Einstein gang have brought in is a form of religion in science and in 100 years its still here.
and Einstein..to his shame let a whole generation go this way so he would later be proved right and his greatness acclaimed.
Emperor's used to do that to glorify their name in history.
Science has gone mad stating explanation before description, and the fact that it is so complex just makes it good for a smaller number of people to go nuts.
Perhaps they all dealt with themselves unconsciously, which is at least forgiveable.
I've seen it before with the universe spontaneously popping into being.
Now its quantum events are non-caused - but of course you cant measure it, or observe it without the readings being bonkers.
Quantum Theory is is direct conflict with relativity.
they cant BOTH be true,
The world is cause and effect, (that';s relativity), you can test it. you can observe it, you can describe it, and you can predict it causally and probabilistically.
And you know as well as I do you can have several interpretations of something you cant describe.
However quantum archaeology accommodates EITHER theory. It works with pure causality and it works with quantum theory.
Entanglement is nothing more than a new form of magnetism. Invisible magic until you know what;s happening.
The Uncertainty Principle is a drunks party and the interpretations should all be ditched in favour of science.
Quantum machines are built in the same way a s some medicines 9whose side effects do god knows what)
they get stuff to work but the specific mechanics is unknown:
Please respond to the 50 summed integers question. Are you really expecting to perform logically/mathematically feats simply my doing more "computation"?
Please respond to the 50 summed integers question. Are you really expecting to perform logically/mathematically feats simply my doing more "computation"
i did.
1. The Pauli exclusion principle shows each event is unique (by spacetime coordinates.
2. The time line to each unique event is also unique.
the timeline is also very complex.
If someone called Anne insulted you years ago and you meet another Anne, you wouldn't slap her would you?
Some people do this..especially in love when their reasoning powers are diminished.
Lewis Carol looked at this quoting the John Byron poem about Handel and another Georgian composercomposer.
: wiki" The characters are perhaps best known from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice Found There (1871). Carroll, having introduced two fat little men named Tweedledum and Tweedledee, quotes the nursery rhyme, which the two brothers then go on to enact. They agree to have a battle, but never have one. When they see a monstrous black crow swooping down, they take to their heels. The Tweedle brothers never contradict each other, even when one of them, according to the rhyme, "agrees to have a battle". Rather, they complement each other's words."
If your identical events idea was true in the small world it would be true in the large world, and you would fight people who thought they were you eg for possession of your apartments. They would fight you because they thought you were the imposter.
But to exist in the conflict would require they occupied different space-time co-ordinates and thus had a different history AT THE SAME SCALE
Gravity is said to act differently at different scales and different laws have been drawn up!.
This is impossible,. The world is continuous
Galileo wrestled with such an idea in his apocryphal gravity/acceleration experiment dropping a feather and a cannon ball from the tower of pizza
So while in theory a particular event may have an immediate description like many others, it's space-time coordinates could not be mistake for another.
One way to think of it is No event is just a maths result but has MANY feed factors and a unique space-time.
UNDERNEATH the required event lots (infinite?) of sub-events can be treated as identical when you calculate up.
What's your take on "free will"? What's the point of being resurrected if you're just a spectator in your own life?
FREE WILL has nothing to do with the micro world.
Neither has the observer, the soul,, God, suicide, nor non-causality.
The assumed conflict between determinism and Free will are resolved in the compatability argument.
Stanford:
Compatibilism
First published Mon Apr 26, 2004; substantive revision Mon Oct 5, 2009 Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem. This philosophical problem concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.
Roger Penrose - who was good enough to straighten me out on some maths when he leactured to a few of us
.
I appreciate it's very hard to think you are just inevitable laws and freedom is an illusion only possible with the sun total of things ( also impossible in an infinite universe) .
But you are as a flung stone shouting 'See, I chose to fly!"
Parmenides resolved this more than two millennia ago.
The argument you are pondering is
Does complexity free us from the laws of physics.
No.
If you then ponder "What's the point?"
this thought inevitably confronts all those raised in the school of free will whose ego chooses to exclude Cause and Effect for themselves.
Or for themselves and their species.
Animals used to be excluded from this..
'Choosing' is a term (subjective) attributing power to a system.
If you think of the universe as purely determined, everything (apart from quantum theory which is wrong) is explainable.
Note the quantum world is not wrong, just the theory that it is non-causal (and this said where we cant observe it without affecting the observation).
Perspective subjective is useful and everyone jumps from one perspective to another
A human being is not advanced enough to think of themselves in terms of determinism. That is our nature and limit.
Philosophy divides analysis IMO
into the nature of Being and the nature of Motion.
see the 160 lines of his works remaining (from 3,000)
38 Ways To Win An Argument by Arthur Schopenhauer 1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend. 2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument. Example: Person A says, “You do not understand the mysteries of Kant’s philosophy.” Person B replies, “Oh, if it’s mysteries you’re talking about, I’ll have nothing to do with them.” 3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than what was asserted. 4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal. 5 Use your opponent’s beliefs against him. If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage. Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent. 6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove. Example: Call something by a different name: “good repute” instead of “honor,” “virtue” instead of “virginity,” “red-blooded” instead of “vertebrates”. 7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent’s admissions. 8 Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies. 9 Use your opponent’s answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions. 10 If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede. 11 If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted. 12 If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition. Example: What an impartial person would call “public worship” or a “system of religion” is described by an adherent as “piety” or “godliness” and by an opponent as “bigotry” or “superstition.” In other words, insert what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea. 13 To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical. Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must to everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, “whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents.” Or , if a thing is said to occur “often” you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say “many.” It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black. 14 Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed. 15 If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent’s acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted. For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding. 16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action. Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?” Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, “Why don’t you leave on the first plane?” 17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea. 18 If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject. 19 Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific. Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it. 20 If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted. 21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him. For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth. Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner. 22 If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question. 23 Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement. Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement’s limits and say, “That is what I said, no more.” 24 State a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears that opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted. 25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent’s proposition. Example: “All ruminants are horned,” is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel. 26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself. Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.” You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.” 27 Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected. 28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him. 29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion--that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter. 30 Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself. 31 If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge. Example: “What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.” In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent. 32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category. Example: You can say, “That is fascism” or “Atheism” or “Superstition.” In making an objection of this kind you take for granted 1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited; and 2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience. 33 You admit your opponent’s premises but deny the conclusion. Example: “That’s all very well in theory, but it won’t work in practice.” 34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so. You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies. 35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive. If you success in making your opponent’s opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately. Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma. You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church. He will abandon the argument. 36 You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable. 37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases. If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day. 38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
They are foollish because they get argument no nearer to Truth
1. Do you believe Truth exists.
2. Do you agree that where two propositions are in conflict they cant BOTH be true?
Our foundation is Power, but without Truth we cannot advance. Nor can we ever find absolute truth, just relative fact.
But Truth be our aim!
Phi So I advise you against ad hominems and straw men or ignoring replies because it lessens consensual gains of Truths.
Politics and capitalism and even science are weaker disciples and when they clash with philosophers who can step quickly into both Seneca famously proved this when he took over Rome).
Plato, Seneca, and Aristotle in a medieval manuscript illustration (c. 1325–35)
But the works of tyrants must be made null and void as Quantum Archaeology rises - which is not possible to stop.
i think I've underestimated some of your arguments but try to reply to them.
Freezing our bodies is part of self-examination, and I shall study my frozen cadaver when resurrected...i may even eat it to study it, thereby loosing nothing of myself!
Ettinger's book is a work of genius..deceptive in its simplicity. he goes into the arguments on what are You
in a way no philosopher before him had, and his intelligence and humanity guide us from the ice cannister.
I think the way to get Quantum Archaeology is to be able to juggle partial solutions at once - especially partial perspectives which appear differently.
You proceed with bits and bobs here arnd there .
Individually they dont mean anything.
Collectively you can go to work on probability and deduce definite.
Once you have a definite you dont need to calculate that again.
This is standard for detective work.
In intelligence (security) these tiny bits are all pooled and cross-calculated.
Elementary Watson )!
Its a slow way to reconstruct required data though and there are innovative ways
They all require great maths. But maths is done as machines now...at least we do most of it as machines.
The amount we can play with is trendable as
calculation -------------- mathematics
in common use anyhow.
Lots of crackpots have new ways of doing things routinely.
Mathematics is a broad wonderful fairground of bizarre patterns and revelations
One things clear if you're tracking technology:
the human era's nearly over.
Judgement Engine by Greg Bear - clearly inspired by HG Wells - looks at post-Singularity time.
That was written decades ago and seems tame now but it;s a classic on possible human states.
Can you make your questions in simpler language Platypus?
All of us are ignorant.
Here is a piece of incomplete data (information)
That is what archaeology is.
You generate zillions of solutions in mathematical machines
then you eliminate the impossible ones with decent software programmes like XYLEM
I know it can sound a bit black boxy until its specified.
But it'll ring true at some point in studying it
We have to be quite firm and state the Quantum Theory is gibberish, while accepting the usefulness of quantum events, and the inescapability of the laws of physics.
I reiterate Quantum Archaeology can accommodate Quantum Theory if I'm wrong, it just means accepting 2 sets of laws in the universe until they're synthesised.
If you mean list all possible factors of a 50 whole number sequence?
That is absolutely doable.
Once you have them you determine which factors are the correct ones by cross-referencing with other similar examples...if that's any help...??
How come you can connect this (If you'll allow argument by analogy)?
Because the order is numbered.
The numbered dots represent the laws of physics in my analogy
Events are connected...however small...not by no laws, but only by absolute laws.
It is my belief, like Einstein's that we can capture enough of the relevant laws to reconstruct dead men to life.
Although this is an argument to the future (to future technology) like cryonics, some reconstructions have already been done which impress the hell out of me, and which I think foreshadow what will be possible.
3D Reconstruction of the face
algorithms, equations, maths.
If with the face (outside of the skull) why not inside the skull?
Once we have DNA (by retrodiction across aeons along the tree of life...which we are already working out) we could reconstruct the memory free dead person.
Then add the memories by calculating the environment.
Facial reconstructions from scavenged DNA in public places have been presentedat the Smithsonian, and functional parts of life-forms extinct for hundreds of millions of years have been resurrected in evolutionary biology. There is an underlying genetic unity in the whole kingdom of living things, making archaeology down to the smallest needed scale easier, and tackleable from many different perspectives.
300 yr old American sailor
These facial reconstructions (which evolved from archaeology and police forensics and identification artists after a crime) are authentic.
If we can do this now with limited computing and almost NO machine intelligence, what may we be able to do in 5 yrs?
10 years?
What in a billion years?
It doesn't matter to the dead when they wake since a moment's subjective time is all that will pass for them.
July 19, 2007 - The journal Science publishes Schaeffer's team's article "Checkers Is Solved", presenting their proof that the best a player playing against Chinook can achieve is a draw.[6]
The theatre we make of ancient creatures are based on reconstruction science. It's with little maths, no intelligent computers (due after 2022) limited cataloguing, much not online, and little enough software to manipulate the biology and the environment in trials at speed.
Much of it is going look silly...way out...but we are advancing.
Where will this be in a billion years?
You see a dinasor eating another,
I see data, that's interable.
Including the human onlookers.
Everything can be expressed in a Bostrom Simulation
exactly...without error. But only a lot of the present, not all (Godel's incompleteness) and not so much of the future (which would be full of errors because of inflation)
BUT ALL OF THE PAST.
That is the beauty of quantum archaeology: ALL of the past.
Data expressed as images A billion years will happen in a few seconds with coming Superintelligence.
This paper outlines the case for believing that we will have superhuman artificial intelligence within the first third of the next century. It looks at different estimates of the processing power of the human brain; how long it will take until computer hardware achieve a similar performance; ways of creating the software through bottom-up approaches like the one used by biological brains; how difficult it will be for neuroscience figure out enough about how brains work to make this approach work; and how fast we can expect superintelligence to be developed once there is human-level artificial intelligence.
Quantum Archaeology is ideated to be built without Superintelligence nor Time Travel as its fun to draft long hand. assuming only present day computers
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838 Jun 23, 2013 – Plants have a built-in capacity to do maths, which helps them regulate food reserves in the night, say UK scientists.
It's reasonable to suppose that life..any life eg the way memories form in the brain, is describable in maths.
And computers do maths fats.
Super recursive algorithms ( yes no flow charts that go back and learn and correct themselves are already here, though when I started this thread 6 months ago there was a lot of argument that they were crackpot online.
Luckily the Americans didn't hang about and plucked Mark out of obscurity to a US faculty where he'll doing more with them:)
"Relation to the Church–Turing thesis
The Church–Turing thesis in recursion theory relies on a particular definition of the term algorithm. Based on definitions that are more general than the one commonly used in recursion theory, Burgin argues that super-recursive algorithms, such as inductive Turing machines disprove the Church–Turing thesis. He proves furthermore that super-recursive algorithms could theoretically provide even greater efficiency gains than using quantum algorithms." wiki
I'm no expert but they appear useful, and may outperform any group of quantum computers.
the difficulty in breaking science is that until it;s repeated many times, you're nuts or a heretic.
If you argue to the future like cryonics and Quantum Archaeology and Superintelligence it;s not verifiable and not gflasifiable. So you're left with your best guess
"A British physicist who has pioneered the development of a new class of metamaterials and proposed the idea of an "invisibility cloak" has won the top honour at the UK's Institute of Physics (IoP) awards...."
The question can be who are you...and the transhumanist asserts "I am becoming superman, and I am the measure of all things. Science is my tool, not my master, Reason is a closed loop of self-references, and Truth is whatever I can win and hold."
Unlike fascism which misunderstood the debate: humanity is a key pillar of H+ derived from expansive altruism.
Paradise Engineering is a science precursor we will be able to re-engineer suffering out of all life forms and Quantum Archaeology will enable suffering to be re-engineered out of the dead as well as out of the living in an infinite multi-verse
But at any minute a catastrophe could occur that's why we need to build containable Superintelligence IMO
FOR NEWBIES:
FIVE ASSUMPTIONS.
The universe is made of events and the laws that govern them.
Enough data samples can be taken the present to describe data in the past, using mathematics and the laws of science.
There is no qualitative difference between a dead being and any other historical data.
Archaeology is increasing.
Microrobots that construct on cellular scales are already prototyping.
Quantum Archaeologyis a proposed science of resurrecting the dead. It anticipates coming process technologies that accelerate science and technology. It assumes the universe is made of events and the laws that govern them, and seeks to make maps of brain/body states at the instant of death for every being in history.Then give them back their bodies, healthier and better. Living beings are seen as data sets that can be worked out by statistics and mathematics and plotted on a four dimensioned grid.
So do you understand that retrieving 50 integers from their sum only is impossible?
Nowhere in the universe are there 50 numbers in isolation.
Everything's connected.
Do do you have to simulate "everything" in order to get any useful answers? QA cannot be divided into smaller subproblems?
Yes.
you can do that.
Event bubbles (event trees).
An event traced back from say now to 1066 would have lots of markers in the present traced back to one event in the past.
It would be look like an inverted triangle, all focusing on the required event.
Something like this
Inside it would be a tree whose branches intersect and thicken or narrow at certain points: event density...the more the events the denser the lines.
A Phylogenetic tree is an example, and phyolgenetics has given first resurrection successes
see quantum archaeology google sites.
this is VERY simple compared to the complex event bubbles that form the whole quantum archaeology grid
Parameters are always approximations in our maths (they dont look like that) as Zeno showed with the arrow that never reaches the target.
But that's the best our maths can do.
Calculating Mozart's thoughts on a particular day when he was alone in a rom you need to consider hierarchy scales.
These are quite difficult calculations, because they involve vast calculations, but not for coming computing.
It would be as simple in the future to calculate all human relevant events (including thoughts) as a particulat event bubble.
German supercomputer SuperMUC to be upgraded
There is a supercomputer race .
It will carry in in present paradigms of multiple processors until quantum computing and chemical computing come from about 2022.
today:
German supercomputer SuperMUC to be upgraded
" Less than a year after its inauguration, work has already commenced on a system expansion on what was once Europe’s fastest supercomputer. The performance upgrade for SuperMUC is due to be completed by the middle of 2015 at a cost of around 44 million dollars and will more than double the current peak performance of 3.185 petaflops, making it capable of 6.4 petaflops. Professor Arndt Bode, chairman of the GCS centre Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) in Garching near Munich, where SuperMUC is located, also revealed that plans are already in place for a successor supercomputer capable of hundreds of petaflops. That computer is due to enter operation in 2016 or 2017."
The way science works is big things reduce to small things, under scrutiny.
Complex things you can only predict aggregately like crowds (which is where the Quantum Theory is @ present) under scrutiny revels the dynamics of it's individual units.
So a crowd becomes individuals. Ability to predict crowds becomes ability to predict individuals and add them up to one crowd.
This is true for a galaxy of stars
and true for a flock of birds.
True for a cloud
and true for the individual molecules that make it up.
True for the data in the present,
and true for the data in the past.
The only things (data describes things) not accessible are those which dont - have NEVER exist/ed.
One event bubble doesn't just have one unit all identical ( by identical we mean interchangable, usually)
but could have many things, where it may be called an ENVIRONMENT.
The thngs and the laws are really the same things, expressed from different perspectives.
But they are absolutely related.
And their histories are absolutely traceable because we have short-cuts (the laws of physics) to check that! Everything leaves traces of where it was because it affected its neighbours.
This is not my half-baked looney ideas, but the new physics that's being taught.
"Information is incapable of being destroyed" Susskind, Stanford.
No has died.
No -one is dead.
Because death is incapable of being a final state.
We live in the shock of our primitive ancestral psyche coping with loss ans absence and being unable to work out resurrection through far future science. Attributing 'death' to things we discover like black holes and finding out they are not final states.
how do we know this is true?
Because we are already raising dead data. Data extinct for 100's of millions of years.
"Facial reconstructions from scavenged DNA in public places have been presentedat the Smithsonian, and functional parts of life-forms extinct for hundreds of millions of years have been resurrected in evolutionary biology."
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
This topic is locked
