2214 replies to this topic

[platypus]

Let us establish whether underdeterminism is true or false.

Please use math/physics when doing so. Making an unsubstantiated claim proves nothing.

If Susskind is right you do NOT need a colossal sensor network. One does not follow from the other, they are not related.

Did you check where Susskind says the information from an event goes, as info cannot be destroyed? Didn't it go into the properties and velocities of particles that orginated from the event? In order to capture this info again you need to measure the properties of the particles, right? Ergo, a sensor network is needed?

Secondly, QA does not require a sensor network but using existing dynamic databases, like eg the archaeological record and the geological record and the Tree of Life on the Web, in a proposed synthesis.

And what makes you think that those databases are enough to make the problem not underdetermined? Please base your argument on something tangible, as again just stating something does not make it true.

You then follow with four ad hominems which are illegal eg I should put my time into something more productive.

Well, you posts seem a bit worrying to me, as if you're obsessing with the idea so much that you might develop into a crackpot. This should be avoided at all costs. Here's a test too see if one is in dangerous waters:

http://math.ucr.edu/...z/crackpot.html

Underdeterminism is simply lack of information, which is impossible by the maxim

Depends on how well you measure those particles. If you fail to observe, you'll lose the info.

[Julia36]

QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY.

How Science is trying to resurrect the dead.





"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw

• Micro Map of the past being created.
• Quantum computers and new maths to calculate detailed histories and memories of everyone dead.
• Face and body reconstructions a million years old already achieved: mind reconstructions coming.
• 106 billion people to be resurrected within 40 years.

• A Child's Guide to Quantum Archaeology (300 words) <~ start here!!!
• Short version (3,000 words)

• The Quantum Archaeology Grid

• Recursive Civilization

• XYLEM

• Turing Church Workshop Paper

• The Lazarus Long Delusion

MAIN ARTICLE:~~>http://web.archive.o...rchaeologyfile/

[Julia36]

Underdeterminism is impossible given the interactive world: one thing is connected by other things and the laws of science to every other thing.

... what makes you think that those databases are enough to make the problem not underdetermined?

That is a leading question and banned in philosophical argument. However
I have refuted the principle of underdeteminism and cannot agree on a definition of it therefore, consequently I cannot usefully debate it in the models I am using.

The data bases cross reference; the converge and confirm one another. Artefacts are data bases.
In themselves data bases would not be enough to describe the world, so QA is not suggesting using those alone.

QA also suggests using things like the laws of physics (which the laws of science may boil down to)

On INFORMATION

I try not to use information. I prefer data.

Another perspective (model) on the world is there is a mass of data which looks chaotic or random or even homogeneous.
However that depends on the system mining it.

A human civilisation may mine it differently from another civilisation.

The system mining it would mine to satisfy it's innate goals.

You can see this in intelligence for instance, which is a systems achieving it's goals by developing contingent & systems. Systems that are thought contiguous, eg a computer to a human are actually part of the same systems.

We view things anthrocentrically as MIT artist-in-residence Joe Davis has noted.


Joe Davis one of the world's greatest artists.

Please base your argument on something tangible.

I'm not sure if this is a joke.

This is a philosophy and immortality forum, but to enlighten, perhaps you & I could agree on 'tangible'? What do you mean by tanglible other than defined by reference to things we agree exist. Or chose a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary as we're arguing in English:
eg

"
tangible, adj. and n.


Pronunciation: -ble suffix. So French tangible (16th cent. in Littré).(Show Less)

A. adj.
1.



Arte Eng. Poesie ii. i. 53 Of the things that haue conueniencie by relation, as the visible by light colour and shadow: the audible by stirres, times and accents:..the tangible by his obiectes in this or that regard.
1678 R. Cudworth Edinb. Rev. Aug. 319 The..desire of having some visible and tangible object of adoration.
1886 F. W. H. Myers (Hide quotations)


b.



Syntagma Logicum 56 Whereof externall, and tangible workes are produced.
1827 J. C. Hare & A. W. Hare Hours in Libr. 1st Ser. 145 He would not have had much chance of winning tangible rewards.
1875 C. D. E. Fortnum (Hide quotations)





Economist 29 Mar. 710/1 Net tangible assets may be defined as total assets less ‘intangibles’ (goodwill, patents, etc.), current liabilities, and funded debt.
1977 Daily Tel. 2 Sept. 19/2 Alexander Howden's net tangible assets were overstated..according to the audit of the British insurance company.
(Hide quotations)





Disswasive from Popery i. i. 5 This method..is the best, the most certain, visible and tangible.
1684 J. Phillips tr. N. A. de la Framboisière Ess. New Theory of Vision §45. 49 Certain Ideas, perceivable by Touch, as Distance, Tangible Figure, and Solidity.
1814 T. Chalmers (Hide quotations)





Ess. New Theory of Vision §96. 111 Tangible Ideas.
a1763 J. Byrom Remarks Horace in Louis XIV II. 284 These proposals assumed a more tangible form..after the arrival of Turenne.
1852 G. Grote (Hide quotations)





Examiner 11 Jan. 22/2 He..is like the..Executioner,..tangible neither by groan nor by indignation.
(Hide quotations)


B. n.



Princ. Psychol. II. xix. 77 Those things are tangibles; their real properties, such as shape, size, mass, consistency, position, reveal themselves only to touch.
1962 Y. Malkiel in F. W. Householder & S. Saporta Economist 21 Aug. 697/2 He also had some tangibles to offer, in particular a request to Congress to eliminate the import fee on sugar.
1980 I. St. James (Hide quotations)


Derivatives





Universal Etymol. Eng. Dict. II., Tangibleness, capableness of being touched or felt by the Touch.
1843 J. S. Mill Parl. Relig. II. 1410 We have not appreciated it [duty to the poor] fully unless we recognize its tangibleness.
(Hide quotations)




Webster's Amer. Dict. Eng. Lang., Tangibly.
1858 G. MacDonald Phantastes (1878) v. 73 The human forms appeared..more tangibly visible.

"OED

I quote this to emphasise how difficult language is. If e instead of philsophy, I - this sub-forum is for philsophy and imortality and Quantum Archaeology, by any name, is presently philsophy and immorrtality

Science is a branch of philosophy which used to be called natural philsophy.

A use of philosophy is to prepare the argument for the scientist to develop into theories, for the technologists to build.

Underdeterminism is simply lack of information, which is impossible by the maxim

Depends on how well you measure those particles. If you fail to observe, you'll lose the info.

No. You dont need many (Samping theory. Solomonoff) there are other ways of establishing historical events than measurement in the broadest sense. Information is incapable of destruction. It cannot be lost one cannot lose it. It is retreuievable.

(Susskind has many online lectures from Stanford (google) quotation is taken from them)

http://www.youtube.c...64419BFD176F2FD

An extreme example which was used to emphasise the idea that information gets lost was black holes: here information was suckedinto them and somehow got so munched up it was irretrieavable: the laws of physics were said to break down inside black holes but Susskind and others have showed this false by reference to their surface changes in exact proportion to the information that enters them.


There is simulation, where you use causality and sampling and probability. Here you put in descriptions of known things and infer from them.

Quantum Theory, in its infancy, uses little causation, little sampling (which it deems impossible) and much probability. Probaility alone is not reliable, however successful it may be, quantum theory is not 100% and is not as good a theory as cause and effect.

All possible approaches to data can be tried.

Crackpot is a term for pioneers as wel as ignoramuses, and I have learned that new sceince is done by mavricks as well as teams. When the crackpot's ideas are proved correct, they are no longer a crackpot:)

Dawrin is going through this metapmorphosis in the USA, you can make your own judgement when he is resurrected in 2026.

[Julia36]

Scientists say they've discovered secret to writing bestsellers

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 07:32 PM.

[Julia36]

Big Scientific Breakthrough Could Prevent 90% of Cancer-Related Deaths



"Researchers at Cornell University have isolated a protein that could prevent roughly 90% of cancer-related deaths."

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Julia36]

AIA Lecture Program
The AIA's 118th year of its Lecture Program begins in September 2013, and will run through May 2014. Lectures are free to the public, and all are welcome. Top scholars from North America and abroad will be presenting a wide range of current archaeological topics at Societies throughout the United States and Canada."

http://www.archaeological.org/lectures

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[Julia36]

LOOK: The Weirdest New Housewares On The Market


Huffington Post

today



http://www.huffingto..._n_2862941.html

[platypus]

Underdeterminism is impossible given the interactive world: one thing is connected by other things and the laws of science to every other thing.

So what? Can you prove that the result is still not grossly underdetermined?There are many more connections already in the brain of a mouse than there are documented historical events, so reconstructing even a single mouse brain should be impossible even if we used all digital data that exists.

However I have refuted the principle of underdeteminism and cannot agree on a definition of it therefore, consequently I cannot usefully debate it in the models I am using.

I haven't seen you refute it. Just stating something is not a proof.

Please base your argument on something tangible.

I'm not sure if this is a joke.

No joke. You often simply state something as if that would prove something. Why exactly is the system not underdetermined? Can you quantify what you say?

Science is a branch of philosophy which used to be called natural philsophy.

Have you worked as a philosopher, i.e. have you published something in the field?

No. You dont need many (Samping theory. Solomonoff) there are other ways of establishing historical events than measurement in the broadest sense. Information is incapable of destruction. It cannot be lost one cannot lose it. It is retreuievable.

Retrievable with what tools, according to Susskind?

Crackpot is a term for pioneers as wel as ignoramuses, and I have learned that new sceince is done by mavricks as well as teams. When the crackpot's ideas are proved correct, they are no longer a crackpot:)

Sure, but the vast majority of "crackpots" are simply delusional.

[Julia36]

[quote name='platypus' timestamp='1389554351' post='635966']
Underdeterminism is impossible given the interactive world: one thing is connected by other things and the laws of science to every other thing.
[/quote]
[quote]So what? Can you prove that the result is still not grossly underdetermined?
[/quote]
One is never required to prove a negative in argument.

However it's easy to prove that since information is not capable of destruction there is high probability of recovery, and that is is impossible to contend it could never be recovered.

[quote]
There are many more connections already in the brain of a mouse than there are documented historical events[/quote]

False. Though even were it true, events are routinely ascribed truth status in science because they can be calculated to order via maths and the laws of physics.

eg it is a fact that a ball dropped from the leaning tower of pisa falls to earth
We rely on such extrapolations in out lives.



[quote]so reconstructing even a single mouse brain should be impossible even if we used all digital data that exists.[/quote]

No. there is a difference between recovery of the exact lost particles and reconstruction from calculation.

thus is already being done in Resurrection Biology (google) so it is not spurious nor fantastic.


[quote] However I have refuted the principle of underdeteminism and cannot agree on a definition of it therefore, consequently I cannot usefully debate it in the models I am using.[/quote]
[quote]I haven't seen you refute it. Just stating something is not a proof.[/quote]

I halt when I conclude something is a cu-lde-sac or wrong path, and dont think about it again.

"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


this can only work for artificial systems, and not for the real world which is interactive.
In the real world nothing vanishes just changes.

The fact things appear to vanish or come into existence in Quantum Theory is doe to the immaturity f the theory and not because it is a truth. Einstein held that so does tHooft, whom I asked after your question on superdeterminism (he said he disliked ists, but he was generally that.

I hadn't heard the term before and find it unnecessary in any case. Causality covers it.
Cause & Effect can be shown to operate in the world whenever we can can observe enough, and although there are spurious theeries about the very small implying randomness or mystic power to some (eg Quantum Theory;s founder, Max Planck, who stated one must conclude an intelligent mind underpins quantum actions )

Mouse brain?

You are banned from arguing by analogy in philosophy

"An argument is not the same thing as a quarrel. The goal of an argument is not to attack your opponent, or to impress your audience." but to establish validity of reasoning, and this find new, accurate conclusions from irrefutable stating propositions (irrefutable by agreement, since everything can be refuted without it)


In science things are different. The major assumption of the philosophical school of science are set out in the dynamic scientific method. This is also called the scientific model and is the 3rd most successful and influential model ever built (the first two are the philosophical method and the religious method).

Both science and religion are compelled to defer back to philosophy for guidance when they find difficulties.
So I guess you can indeed use underdeterminism as part of your scientific method.
As long as you realise it is not the only approach.

A model using calculation and some archaeological artefacts and other data bases...can indeed reconstruct the history of mankind, warts an' all.

The history of the world and all of information or data is reconstructible by physics laws and calculation.

For my own part I have refuted underdeterminism, though clearly not well enough to teach the refutation. If that is a cop out I guess it's also understandable that one wants to proceed as fast as possible on a series of finds.



[quote]Please base your argument on something tangible.[/quote]
[quote]I'm not sure if this is a joke.[/quote]
No joke.


The joke is often concluded by scientists who say the philosopher never produces anything tangible. Nothing at all in fact. No product. Waste of time.
[quote]
You often simply state something as if that would prove something. Why exactly is the system not underdetermined?

Can you quantify what you say? [/quote]

Maybe we can go through slowly and find where the error is?

Define underdeterminism.


[quote]Science is a branch of philosophy which used to be called natural philsophy.[/quote]
Have you worked as a philosopher, i.e. have you published something in the field?

[quote]No. You dont need many (Samping theory. Solomonoff) there are other ways of establishing historical events than measurement in the broadest sense. Information is incapable of destruction. It cannot be lost one cannot lose it. It is retrievable.[/quote]

Retrievable with what tools, according to Susskind?

ask Susskind. Presumably he means physics as hes a physicist.

[quote]Crackpot is a term for pioneers as well as ignoramuses, and I have learned that new science is done by mavricks as well as teams. When the crackpot's ideas are proved correct, they are no longer a crackpot:)[/quote]


[quote]Sure, but the vast majority of "crackpots" are simply delusional.[/quote]

I think delusion is a difficult term.

From the school of determinism, free will is a delusion and anyone holding they have freewill are by your definition crackpot.

I dispute there are crackpots just people with different models and as a rule yo shouldn't seek offend in philosophy, despite it being a natural impulse
The great orators Hitler and Demosthenes who liberally used ad hominems came to abysmal ends and their philosophies were overturned by the sword. This is also banned in true philosophy ie a philosopher doing philosophy could not act in self defence using one since it could not affect the truth of the argument, which is senior one human being's survival. This will be clearly proved on resurrection of the body eg of Socrates, who discoursed on resurrection

Greek philosophers' belief in the Resurrection -

Resurrection is already evident ion physics, eg by formula producing a resurrection, and waiving identity confusions of lack of understanding of the self (which Ettinger successfully discourses on in cryoncs.

Nor is science definitive since it is modifying in the light of evidence like a criminal ever changing their story, upon which the scientist has to test the new story (law of physics) against experiment):


The arguments is from the scientific school ,and was before Quantum Archaeology.
but it is consistent with philosophical method.


FYI

Category:Philosophical arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Subcategories

This category has the following 7 subcategories, out of 7 total.

A

• 
  
  &#9658; Arguments in philosophy of mind‎ (1 C, 27 P)

G

• 
  
  &#9658; Arguments for the existence of God‎ (1 C, 26 P)
  
• 
  
  &#9658; Arguments against the existence of God‎ (13 P)

I

• 
  
  &#9658; Ideological rivalry‎ (1 C, 16 P)

L

• 
  
  &#9658; Logical fallacies‎ (4 C, 71 P)

R

• 
  
  &#9658; Rhetorical techniques‎ (8 C, 103 P)

T

• 
  
  &#9658; Thought experiments in philosophy‎ (2 C, 14 P)

learn more).
A

• Analogy
  
• Analogy of the Divided Line
  
• Argument from analogy
  
• Argument from marginal cases
  
• Argument from queerness
  
• Argument in the alternative
  
• Arguments for eternity
  
• Atheist's Wager

B

• Brain in a vat

C

• Cartesian circle
  
• Chinese room
  
• Closed circle
  
• Cogito ergo sum

D

• Distinction without a difference

E

• Ethical arguments regarding torture
  
• Evolutionary argument against naturalism
  
• Existence of God
  
• Experience machine

F

• False analogy
  
• Fine-tuned Universe
  
• Foucault–Habermas debate
  
• Frankfurt cases

G

• Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

I

• Ignotum per ignotius

L

• Lazy argument
  
• Lazy reason
  
• Leibniz–Clarke correspondence
  
• Lottery of birth

M

• Master argument
  
• Metaphor of the sun
  
• Myth of Er

N

• New racism
  
• Nothing comes from nothing

O

• Open-question argument
  
• Oppressors–oppressed distinction

P

• Parable of the Invisible Gardener

P cont.

• Peritrope
  
• Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate
  
• Private language argument

Q

• Quinque viae

R

• Regress argument
  
• Rogerian argument
  
• Russell's teapot

S

• Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate
  
• Self-refuting idea
  
• Simulated reality
  
• Skeptical regress
  
• Slingshot argument
  
• Somnium Scipionis

T

• Third man argument
  
• Thought experiment
  
• Transcendental arguments

U

• The Unreality of Time

V

• Vanishing mediator

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[Julia36]

TOKYO, Dec 20 &#8213; The world’s first robot astronaut has begun chatting to the Japanese commander of the International Space Station, in what was being billed as the first conversation of its kind.

Kirobo, a pint-sized android equipped with artificial intelligence and capable of learning how to respond appropriately to humans, even put a marker down for Christmas, telling Koichi Wakata he expected a visit from a certain man bearing gifts.
- See more at: http://www.themalaym...h.g2HhFEDs.dpuf


The big push for mankind is in A.I.

Millions of people are now qualified in it and the
Age of Machine Intelligence will break by 2022

(Verner Vinge expects a Singularity by 2030 thought when pushed said the most likely years would be 2017)

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[Julia36]

Whatever level robots achieve, they are a subset of Artificial intelligence and absolutely subject it.

The A.I. explosion leading directly to a Singularity explosion on the same scale as the formation of the universe was conceived to be, is expected by many technology predictors



http://i.imgur.com/9jJV8.jpg
HELLO WORLD!

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 08:55 PM.

[Julia36]

http://www.ted.com/topics/deextinction

• 
  Play
  George Monbiot: For more wonder, rewild the world
  
  15:10 Posted: Sep 2013
  Views: 367,501
  Comments: 134
• 
  Play
  Michael Archer: How we'll resurrect the gastric brooding frog, the Tasmanian tiger
  
  17:36 Posted: Jun 2013
  Views: 339,350
  Comments: 108
• 
  Play
  Hendrik Poinar: Bring back the woolly mammoth!
  
  10:22 Posted: May 2013
  Views: 453,103
  Comments: 136
• 
  Play
  Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
  
  18:24 Posted: Mar 2013
  Views: 708,624
  Comments: 377
• 
  Play
  David Gallo: Deep ocean mysteries and wonders
  
  08:28 Posted: Mar 2012
  Views: 311,804
  Comments: 51
• 
  Play
  Edith Widder: The weird, wonderful world of bioluminescence
  
  12:45 Posted: May 2011
  Views: 455,487
  Comments: 89
• 
  Play
  Paul Root Wolpe: It's time to question bio-engineering
  
  19:42 Posted: Mar 2011
  Views: 764,277
  Comments: 578

or see earlier pages in this thread

[Julia36]

Engineer stuns archaeology experts by rubbishing their theories about how the pyramids were built



"
Peter James believes ancient Egyptians formed the huge tombs by piling up rubble and small rocks on the inside and attaching the large bricks on the outside later.
His claim challenges hundreds of years of accepted belief that the pyramids were built with giant blocks carried up huge ramps.
The structural engineer, who has spent the past 20 years studying the pyramids, reckons that would be impossible.
He explained: “Under the current theories, to lay the two million stone blocks required the Egyptians would have to have laid a large block once every three minutes on long ramps.
“The pyramids are also so tall that the ramps for the stones would have had to have been at least a quarter of a mile long.
“If that happened, there would still be signs that the ramps had been there, and there aren’t any.”
Peter, who has been an engineer for 54 years, admitted his theory would be controversial.
He said: “I’m going to have a war with archaeologists.
“They will say, ‘How would you know? You’re not an archaeologist.’
“But if you wanted a house built, would you use me or an archaeologist?" more

http://www.dailyreco...bishing-3009531

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 10:26 PM.

[Julia36]

There is no death. Death is logicically impossible in an infinite world. You could never conclude retrieval of information is impossible.

"Death" is premised on the irrecoverabitity of the brain.

It is a philosophically untenable position to hold.

Scientifically, since the proof of concept of recovery of information is accepted,

eg a simulation of the universe back to 13.7 billion years ago,
eg extinct species recovery as de-exitinction (google)
eg archaeology, history,


it must follow that the brain -however small, complex and gooey, is not outside physics to recover by reconstructing the ancient environment of which it was part, and not separate from.

How can one know the climate was thus 3 billion years ago, but what one brain was?
It is entirely a matter of calculation - computaion.
Computation ability is accelerating

World's Archaeology doyenne dies aged 98





not dead.
"One of the most important figures in the archaeology world, Istanbul University’s retired academic Professor Halet Çambel, has died aged 98. Turkish archaeologist and writer Çambel was found dead in her house on Jan. 12.

After a ceremony to be held tomorrow at 10 a.m. at the Bosphorus University, Çambel will be buried next to the grave of her husband in the western province of Mugla. .Born in Berlin, Çambel received undergraduate training in archaeology at the Sorbonne University in Paris and received a doctorate in 1940 from the University of Istanbul. " more

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 10:30 PM.

[Julia36]

Dublin confirmed as hosts for 9th Experimental Archaeology Conference 2015

"Experimental archaeology (also called experiment archaeology and experiential archaeology) is a field of study which attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats." Experimental archaeology - Wikipedia



January 12, 2014

Edited by Innocent, 12 January 2014 - 10:32 PM.

[Julia36]

Facial Recognition App for Glass Challenges Google’s Ban on the Technology

"FacialNetwork see a great use case for an eyeglass-mounted computer like Glass. They recently launched a facial recognition app for Glass, called NameTag, in the hopes of pushing Google to change its policy. The app will also run on Android and iOS smartphones." >>>>
Singularity hub
http://singularityhu...the-technology/

[Julia36]

Volcanoes shift before they spew


Indonesia volcano last week BBC

http://www.nature.co...ey-spew-1.14498

"
“A GPS site can tell you not only that there’s unrest at a volcano, but that it’s about to erupt and then how high its plume will be,” says Sigrún Hreinsdóttir, a geophysicist at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik. She and her colleagues report the discovery today in Nature Geoscience¹.
Knowing that an eruption is about to occur helps emergency officials to prepare for a disaster by closing roads or evacuating nearby residents. And knowing how high a volcano’s ash plume may reach helps airlines to plan for whether they need to re-route flights, or even close airports. The 2011 Grímsvötn event, the largest volcanic eruption in Iceland in nearly a century, temporarily grounded flights in parts of the United Kingdom — a small reminder of the multimillion-euro losses that were incurred as a result of planes being grounded a year before that, when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted." more

[platypus]

[quote name='Innocent' timestamp='1389559094' post='635984']
Underdeterminism is impossible given the interactive world: one thing is connected by other things and the laws of science to every other thing.

[quote]So what? Can you prove that the result is still not grossly underdetermined?
[/quote]
One is never required to prove a negative in argument.[/quote]
Can you prove it or not? What can you prove actually?

[quote]However it's easy to prove that since information is not capable of destruction there is high probability of recovery, and that is is impossible to contend it could never be recovered.[/quote]
Why is that "impossible to contend"? If the information is not available here and now, it is a problem.


[quote]so reconstructing even a single mouse brain should be impossible even if we used all digital data that exists.[/quote]

[quote]No. there is a difference between recovery of the exact lost particles and reconstruction from calculation.

thus is already being done in Resurrection Biology (google) so it is not spurious nor fantastic.[/quote]
Genes do not determine the exact wiring of a mouse brain. What kind of data and how much is needed to reconstruct that? Does those kind of datasets exist?

[quote] However I have refuted the principle of underdeteminism and cannot agree on a definition of it therefore, consequently I cannot usefully debate it in the models I am using.
[quote]I haven't seen you refute it. Just stating something is not a proof.[/quote]

I halt when I conclude something is a cu-lde-sac or wrong path, and dont think about it again.[/quote]
That's not the way you should be thinking!

[quote]A model using calculation and some archaeological artefacts and other data bases...can indeed reconstruct the history of mankind, warts an' all.[/quote]
Why would that be? How did you solve the problem with underdetermination? Computation has rules, it's not magic so everything will not be possible.

[quote]The history of the world and all of information or data is reconstructible by physics laws and calculation.[/quote]
You're still forgetting the sensors needed to capture that information.

[quote]For my own part I have refuted underdeterminism, though clearly not well enough to teach the refutation. If that is a cop out I guess it's also understandable that one wants to proceed as fast as possible on a series of finds.[/quote]
So in practical terms you have not refuted it.

[quote]Define underdeterminism.[/quote]
You have a formula with an infinite number of solutions, without a way to narrowing down to the right solution/solutions.

[quote]ask Susskind. Presumably he means physics as hes a physicist.[/quote]
That would be your job...you quote him but don't know what his position is?

[quote]From the school of determinism, free will is a delusion and anyone holding they have freewill are by your definition crackpot.[/quote]
I don't think things are fully deterministic.

[Julia36]

"Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram


dec 10th Nature



A ten-dimensional theory of gravity makes the same predictions as standard quantum physics in fewer dimensions.
A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection." more>>>
http://www.nature.co...ologram-1.14328


Is Artificial Intelligence Super our latest invention? Singularity examined


The technological singularity is near, that's when the machine is smarter than humans. One is as positive about the other looks really most bad scenario for himself, wiping out humanity.
"You do not get a second chance with Artificial Intelligence Super (ASI). Share the planet with smarter 'beings' than us is a great danger, "said James Barrat in this interview. The developments are at a high pace, while the public has no idea of &#8203;&#8203;the dangers. James Barrat calls in his book "Our last Invention 'and in the following interview everyone to inform the world that will unfold as Artificial Intelligence Super been there themselves. To each his future depends on the steps we take. Just as in the time of the futuristic tale unfolds weapons and nuclear power, a broader discussion should come as Barret."
from the dutch Jan 12 2013




Superintelligence


Paths, Dangers, Strategies

Nick Bostrom
http://ukcatalogue.o...780199678112.do

• Original material based on new research
• Written by one of the leaders in the field
• Novel concepts and terminology will be explained making it suitable for the general reader

The human brain has some capabilities that the brains of other animals lack. It is to these distinctive capabilities that our species owes its dominant position. Other animals have stronger muscles or sharper claws, but we have cleverer brains.

If machine brains one day come to surpass human brains in general intelligence, then this new superintelligence could become very powerful. As the fate of the gorillas now depends more on us humans than on the gorillas themselves, so the fate of our species then would come to depend on the actions of the machine superintelligence.

But we have one advantage: we get to make the first move. Will it be possible to construct a seed AI or otherwise to engineer initial conditions so as to make an intelligence explosion survivable? How could one achieve a controlled detonation?

To get closer to an answer to this question, we must make our way through a fascinating landscape of topics and considerations. Read the book and learn about oracles, genies, singletons; about boxing methods, tripwires, and mind crime; about humanity's cosmic endowment and differential technological development; indirect normativity, instrumental convergence, whole brain emulation and technology couplings; Malthusian economics and dystopian evolution; artificial intelligence, and biological cognitive enhancement, and collective intelligence.

This profoundly ambitious and original book picks its way carefully through a vast tract of forbiddingly difficult intellectual terrain. Yet the writing is so lucid that it somehow makes it all seem easy. After an utterly engrossing journey that takes us to the frontiers of thinking about the human condition and the future of intelligent life, we find in Nick Bostrom's work nothing less than a reconceptualization of the essential task of our time.
Readership: General readers as well as academics in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Computer Science, and Philosophy.




more

[Julia36]

>>>>I don't think things are fully deterministic.<<<<

No exception is possible, or the laws of science could not exist. Not big nor small science.

Laws exist, and where there is law there is prediction.
Where prediction,-retrodiction.
Where retrodiction, information retrieval.

If you still contest non-causality

Pray write a sentence in non-causal words.....

[Julia36]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPx-4yd3Gw

http://www.literatur...y/frankenstein/

• Preface
  
• Chapter 1
  
• Chapter 2
  
• Chapter 3
  
• Chapter 4
  
• Chapter 5
  
• Chapter 6
  
• Chapter 7
  
• Chapter 8
  
• Chapter 9
  
• Chapter 10
  
• Chapter 11
  
• Chapter 12
  
• Chapter 13
  
• Chapter 14
  
• Chapter 15
  
• Chapter 16
  
• Chapter 17
  
• Chapter 18
  
• Chapter 19
  
• Chapter 20
  
• Chapter 21
  
• Chapter 22
  
• Chapter 23
  
• Chapter 24

http://www.dailymail...OUT-driver.html



Unmanned USA

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 01:56 AM.

[Julia36]

Facial reconstructions from whole tribes 6000-7000 years ago could begin.


Neolithic skull from Jerico.

http://strangeremain...ient-near-east/

"The people of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7000-6000 BCE) culture in the Southern Levant had a mortuary practice of removing the skulls of deceased family members and remodeling them with plaster, then burying the body under the floors of their homes. Though most of the plastered skulls unearthed have been" more.








Terrifying new facial reconstruction of Robespierre


"Philippe Charlier, forensic pathologist and indefatigable researcher of historical medical conundrums, and Philippe Froesch, facial reconstruction specialist with Visual Forensic in Barcelona, Spain, have created an intense facial reconstruction of French Revolutionary leader Maximilien de Robespierre. The main source for the image is a plaster copy of a death mask Madame Tussaud claimed* to have made from his decapitated head after he was guillotined on July 28th, 1794. Froesch used a hand-held scanner to create a 3D computer model of the face. He then added details to the smooth-faced model, like the more than 100 pockmarks caused by a bad case of smallpox he suffered 30 years before his death when he was a boy of six. The eyes were a particular challenge because the closed eyelids didn’t..."


1892 France.

MORE>>>

http://www.thehistor.../archives/28426

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 01:48 AM.

[Julia36]

oct 2013
Frontiers of Genetic Enhancement Continue to Advance

"he awarding of the patent "is a massive addition to what is currently being done" in fertility clinics, said Sigrid Sterckx of the Bioethics Institute Ghent in Belgium, who co-wrote a commentary on the 23andMe patent in the journal Genetics in Medicine on Thursday. "It indicates a different attitude, not just about disease-related traits, but nondisease traits."

http://online.wsj.co...113293429460678

The 3 stages of an idea (Schopenhauer dead @ the moment).

1. Impossible.

2. Unethical.

3. Accepted as the norm.

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 01:43 AM.

[Julia36]

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 02:20 AM.

[Julia36]

Time Runs Out For Europe.

http://basicincome20...onfirmation.htm

At Midnight Europe's 27 million unemployed will be prove
too apathetic to vote themselves for free money for life!




Voting on the petition for Unconditional Basic Income as a human and civil right
will fail at midnight, January 13th 2014 when not enough people will vote to force the European Parliament debate it for Europe's near 1 billion peoples.






Europe has failed to synthesis communism and capitalism, in what would be a lead move, granting citizens existence payments as a human right and not because of age or disability.

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 03:15 AM.

[platypus]

So you've conceded that you don't seem to know how to refute the problem of underdetermination. Also, the information Susskind is talking about is in the case of black holes probably coded into the Hawking radiation that is emanating from the black hole:

https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation

So in order to retrieve this information, you need to have sensors that measure that radiation. Yet you think that for QA no sensors are needed - why?

[Julia36]

So you've conceded that you don't seem to know how to refute the problem of underdetermination. Also, the information Susskind is talking about is in the case of black holes probably coded into the Hawking radiation that is emanating from the black hole:

https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation

So in order to retrieve this information, you need to have sensors that measure that radiation. Yet you think that for QA no sensors are needed - why?

Politics too is a subset of philosophy, platypus the younger!

Straw men are not allowed in philosophical argument.
You cant state, imply nor suggest I said one thing,not even by exaggeration, then knock it over, as if you had defeated the argument point I had made.

That is banned in philosophical discourse.

For an example of banishment see Cicero's denouement of Cataline's conspiracy to take over Rome:




Innocent against Platypus Longecity 2014

"When, O Platypus, do you mean to cease abusing our patience?

How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?

When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?
Do not the regular rules on the Forum—do not the moderators posted throughout the site—does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men—does not the precaution taken of assembling the internet in this most defensible place—do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body here present, have any effect upon you?

Do you not feel that your plans are detected?

Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which every one here possesses of it?

What is there that you did last night, what the night before— where is it that you were—who was there that you summoned to meet you—what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?

Shame on the age and on its principles!" more>>>

M. Tullius Cicero, Against Catiline,


Cicero's rherorical questions were only excelled numerically in classical times by Demosthenes, and ever by Hitler (who achieved 40): all 3 brought down their states and were killed, so as a general rule rhetoric is also banned from philosophical argument.

But to answer your serious point about sensors.

The idea of some kind of machine that can sense the past or present data is intriguing.

It is similar to calculation from present artefacts, but could involve physical properties like spacetime distortion as the technology becomes available with A.I.

Although this looks like a black box explanation, in futurism one has exceptional licence to make argument to the future, where it is normally banned as obscuring truth and being impossible to prove.

Cryonics and Quantum Archaeology are strictly both arguments to the future, since neither have been achieved i.e. total human resurrections have never been achieved.

Both have however achieved proof of some of their concepts. In cryonics, living human matter has been frozen to very low preservative temperature then revived, indeed the practice is routine in IVF where embryos are frozen for later implant.

There are many people alive today who were once, as embyos, cryonically suspended.





Baby Born After 19 Years as an Embryo


Quantum Archaeology has already been achieved in part with eg Professor Joe Thornton's 800 million year extinct Proton Pump:



Richard Dawkins Site: Evolution of complexity recreated

Here a living biological mechanism that pumped proteins in organism extinct for nearly a billion years was resurrected by Jo Thornton by calculating backward from present day systems, and verified by inserting it into yeast cells where it worked, proving his theory

QA and Cryonics are proved in principle, and the test must now be whether dead people, either cronically suspended or extinct from any records can be achieved.

I dont expect that before the 2020's on present trends, but predictions as to exact times are notoriously difficult. There could be an asteroid hit on earth, a supervolcano that extinguishes life or other things. The future was ruled a mystery in argument because of its complexity, and it still is: however we rely on argument to the future in daily life, assuming no extinction will happen.

SENSORS

What would such systems have to do?

Would they be physical 3 dimensiopnal or couod they be built in software.

What data would need to be gathered by them and how would they gather it?

Could they be built now, or would they require sophisticated machine intelligence?

How could you establish tests of them working correcting?

How could the theory be falsifiable under Popper's rules etc


To mechanise what I have called the Quantum Archaeology grid into one system called a historical sensor or something you may like to coin, would be a good idea.

It would have to be able to data mine, and that would assume data bases like artefact information would be digitalised.

That digitalisation, where artefacts like Greek urns are scanned and their details recorded into computers, is being done slowly.

Compensation for decay can be calculated: eg radio active decay of carbon happens according to strict laws of physics and is a basis for measuring the age of organic archaeological material.

A machine that scanned artefacts off-line may indeed be buildable. Drone technology is accelerating, and presumably robotic archaeologists could be extremely effecient, even for use on other planets. Simple scanning systems are already being used by NASA like their Mars Rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity" scanning 10 years on Mars for such work:



video BBC
4 days ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...25632383#threeG

Re Susskind and the indestructibility of infomation, "quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information" wiki

While it is true that was in the context of black holes, there is not separate physics rules ie one set for small one for big (although great scientists have contested so eg Penrose) unless you accept physics laws are subjective.

i dont see how they can be, or if they were, how we could ever know that they were.

Fashionably, it doesn't mater. The fashion is to examine things via models and open the examination to inspection of the correctness of the model and the validity of the process one has applied in the examination, theoretical or experimental.

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[platypus]

Ok, so sensors would be useful.

Underdeterminism means that you have more unknowns that equations. Can you argue from some quantitative basis that in QA you can avoid underdeterminism? I don't remember you explaining why and how this would happen.

[Julia36]

Ok, so sensors would be useful.

Underdeterminism means that you have more unknowns that equations. Can you argue from some quantitative basis that in QA you can avoid underdeterminism? I don't remember you explaining why and how this would happen.

Yes. You use a Quantum Archaeology Grid and calculate the unknowns
When there's a gap, for instance, a linear calculation would suggest a line of possibles solutions. The number of possibles would be vast (but not infinite).

Then you calculate along another line from another place in the grid to a different but known point.

The lines wil intersect in fewer, but still a vast numb er of places.

Then you do the same from from another point...over and over.

At each sweep you give increased weighting to some probabilities and none or less to others.
This is not done in 2D of course but 3D and 4D ( time) and any other Dimensions you can find useful.
I've suggested a language like XYLEM (QA links above) could be used to help, where one truth can equate to another on the opposite side of the equation using Z.

That would mean you could state with certainty, NB certainty, whether you had described the correct formerly lost event or not without making calculation error.
Once you have established the new event on the grid, this can be used in calculating further ones.








+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JAPAN MODELS 1% of 1 SECOND OF LIVING HUMAN BRAIN (the most accurate so far)

today:


example of modelling the brain brain by slicing done in some labs.

http://www.telegraph...n-activity.html

"The most accurate simulation of the human brain to date has been carried out in a Japanese supercomputer, with a single second’s worth of activity from just one per cent of the complex organ taking one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers 40 minutes to calculate...." MORE



Brain Scanner You Can Print Out:




http://www.wired.com...014/01/openbci/


today
"
Conor Russomanno and Joel Murphy have a dream: They want to create an open-source brain scanner that you can print out at home, strap onto your head, and hook straight into your brainwaves.
This past week, they printed their first headset prototype on a 3-D printer, and WIRED has the first photos.
Bootstrapped with a little funding help from DARPA —" more

Edited by Innocent, 13 January 2014 - 06:41 PM.

[Julia36]

Artificial-intelligence research revives its old ambitions


yesterday:

OK general article showing A,.I, winter may be over.

Artificial-intelligence research revives its old ambitions


January 12, 2014



The birth of artificial-intelligence research as an autonomous discipline is generally thought to have been the monthlong Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence in 1956, which convened 10 leading electrical engineers — including MIT’s Marvin Minsky and Claude Shannon — to discuss “how to make machines use language” and “form abstractions and concepts.” A decade later, impressed by rapid advances in the design of digital computers, Minsky was emboldened to declare that “within a generation … the problem of creating ‘artificial intelligence’ will substantially be solved.”
The problem, of course, turned out to " MORE>>>
"