2214 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Yes, but even that problem even with only 5 particles is in many cases underdetermined, i.e. more than one initial state will produce the same end state. In any reasonably complex system there's an infinite number of initial states that produce the same end state. When you add deterministic chaos, finite precision and rounding errors into this the game is over.

More than one initial states might produce the same end state, but if your initial state was for example 500 years ago, you could have several historical checkpoints between now and then to make sure they are correct states (i.e. states that actually existed at some point in time) as well, reducing the number of possible initial states.

The simulation-argument is interesting for perhaps half an hour, then it's in the same league as pondering how many angels fit on the pin of a needle.

Maybe so, but can it be refuted?

For the sake of argument, imagine that the universe *is* deterministic -- who here thinks that quantum archaeology is still impossible, given powerful enough computers?

Even if such a simulation was possible, you could just as easily "reconstruct" someone while the subject is still alive. So you wouldn't resurrect them, you would be making a copy.

Good point. But then, isn't brain uploading copying as well, and yet it seems like a goal worth pursuing? You could make copies from your uploaded brains too.

[platypus]

The simulation-argument is interesting for perhaps half an hour, then it's in the same league as pondering how many angels fit on the pin of a needle.

No, and that is exactly the problem. Is there an afterlife? (similar class of a question)

[JLL]

The simulation-argument is interesting for perhaps half an hour, then it's in the same league as pondering how many angels fit on the pin of a needle.

No, and that is exactly the problem. Is there an afterlife? (similar class of a question)

Hmm, true. I guess I was intrigued by the probability argument (which is not really true of afterlife) but I agree that questions that can't possibly be proven/disproven are not interesting.

[Julia36]

1. the issue of randomness goads this discussion. People are split as to where it can exist as other than a maths construct.
Von Neuman (1st computers) didn't think if it did man could in any case simulate it.
In the meso (human size) world we never see randomness, so the argument from platypus that quantum chaos would necessarily filter into our world and therefore make histories incalculable doesn't follow.

But it depends also on how small you are constructing, because cause and effect always hold in the observable world.

2. The fact events mushroom through time works in QA's favour:
there are more events in the present. Many of their timelines can be attempted using science laws.

Then those can be cross-referenced with other timelines to pinpoint events as small as 5 nanometres

and you dont need to go smaller to build individual brains. Everything smaller than that is replaceable by similar ones via the principle of interchangeability.

QA is futurist but so is cryonics: they make guesses about what will be possible.

It's amazing what you can do with calculation sampling and near infinite maths syetms
Quantum computers are inefficient at present. The more they calculate they less accurate they are.
But error rediction is trending better and ibm predicted it will be at required efficiencies in 10 years.

They will no doubt keep reducing that.

Ettinger wondered if there was a Law of Conservation of Information and nothing was capable of being lost.

I am a determinist so randomness is impossible for me: for something to now have laws that guide it;s existence it would dissolve..not even restricted by the speed of light. But that's not so. Everything that is moves. And everything that moves is bounded by laws which define it.

Using those laws gives ways of awesome predicting.

Edited by stopgam, 18 December 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[platypus]

Even if there is no randomness at all, turbulence and other similar phenomena ensure that the smallest differences in initial values cause different outcomes.

BTW, is "determinism" a religion for you, or why don't you want to accept the last 100 years of developments in physics?

Edited by platypus, 18 December 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[DeadMeat]

Even if such a simulation was possible, you could just as easily "reconstruct" someone while the subject is still alive. So you wouldn't resurrect them, you would be making a copy.

Good point. But then, isn't brain uploading copying as well, and yet it seems like a goal worth pursuing? You could make copies from your uploaded brains too.

For preserving identity(or whatever) I think brain uploading has the same problems. On the other hand we are biological computers. So some form of gradually transferring ourselves to some type of bigger computer may still be possible.

And at least brain uploading is still useful for making artificial bees.
http://news.cnet.com...ns-into-robots/

[Julia36]

Mind uplaoding looks likely to me, and is dependant on scanning.
what are you going to do with the 160 Billion dead since 50,00BC


I dunno if we'd want to be in a computer unless that had more degrees f freedom and sensitivity than a human body.


We have zillions of senses w cold build in which convert to brain data.
i dont know the limit on neural networks...something to do with hormones and blood feeds than underpin them, buyt there may be a limit.

Google is set to get much smarter. It may be unrecognizable in 5 years.

what are you going to do with the 160 Billion dead since 50,00BC

Edited by stopgam, 18 December 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[Julia36]

Even if there is no randomness at all, turbulence and other similar phenomena ensure that the smallest differences in initial values cause different outcomes.

It works backwards. the turbulence argument is 'size of calculation' argument.

BTW, is "determinism" a religion for you, or why don't you want to accept the last 100 years of developments in physics?

Well i dont see anythign to oppose it except explanations of what is happening in ther quantum world which is unobservaable and cofounds GALLILEO'S FIRST MAXIM:



Observation THEN explanation.

There are surely weird affects in the quantum world but I dispute they lie outside the laws of science. Yes i hold cause and effect to be an immutable principle.


Do you dispute randomness would creep into the meso world were it a fact?

[platypus]

what are you going to do with the 160 Billion dead since 50,00BC

How about this: Nothing needs to be done about the past as all instances of time are equally real. The past never went anywhere, it's still there.

Even if there is no randomness at all, turbulence and other similar phenomena ensure that the smallest differences in initial values cause different outcomes.

It works backwards. the turbulence argument is 'size of calculation' argument.

No it's not. It's the INITIAL STATE argument. If you're off by an arbitrarily small amount, deterministic chaos will get you. (Sheesh, it feels like I'm talking to a wall )

what are you going to do with the 160 Billion dead since 50,00BC

...and since we're getting religious anyway, why don't we just resurrect everyone that ever lived, in an improved form, straight to Heaven!?

Edited by platypus, 18 December 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[JLL]

But deterministic chaos IS a 'size of calculation' problem. Weather is an example of deterministic chaos, but eventually, there's no reason why weather cannot be accurately predicted.

Another way to think about it: IF you knew EVERYTHING about the universe, including the laws that govern it, and was given an initial state, then you could predict what happens when you press "play".

The question, then, really is whether everything about the universe is knowable or not.

[platypus]

But deterministic chaos IS a 'size of calculation' problem. Weather is an example of deterministic chaos, but eventually, there's no reason why weather cannot be accurately predicted.

And how is that possible without first recording the position and velocity of every particle that is part of the weather-system? This IS the initial value problem - you just cannot place instruments everywhere and if you miraculously could, the mere presence of the instruments would change the weather you wanted to measure.

[Julia36]

It isn't about particles it;s about possible events. ' the particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high'.


Superimposed on that are archaeological traces deduced by causation (and probability)

Man is ingenius @ finding solutions to things. You should know that as a platypus!

YOU haven't refuted the randomness permeating into the meso world. Where is it?

I can answer: the whole place is causal.

How about this: Nothing needs to be done about the past as all instances of time are equally real. The past never went anywhere, it's still there.

That's a good conjecture, but it equally applies that we dont live in such a world.

We live in a linear world and act according to what we see.

Though of course the universe is bound to be beyond our imagination.

If I thought science wasn't causal I'd become an artist.






“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star." Einstein.

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
Albert Einstein

Edited by stopgam, 18 December 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Julia36]

WHAT MATTERS

-what matters is whether predictions in the quantum world can hold ('if prediction then retrodiction')

from wiki:

Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to an extremely high degree of accuracy.

This is fundamental and seems to sweep objections aside.


Entangled particles are not understood (3 entangled particles are thought to exist

http://www.science20..._particle-99150 )


and Einstein's failed attempt to show a hidden thing at work looked right.



we must observe before we explain.

Many of my assumptions will be wrong and quantum archaeology desperately needs debating by brighter minds than mine.

Edited by stopgam, 19 December 2012 - 07:21 AM.

[platypus]

Stopgam, please read this book, it shows how strange the universe really is at low level:

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0691024170

You have built a whole philosophy on 19th century ideas, please broaden your horizons.

Einstein was a wonderfully bright guy but he was a product of another era in physics - the same can be said about Galileo or Aristoteles too....

[platypus]

A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.^[13]

https://en.wikipedia...tial_conditions

I seem to remember from physics studies that if you want to predict the behaviour of billiard balls on a billiard-table you can only predict 6-10 collisions before you need to take the masses of the players and nearby buildings into account in the calculations. Extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is a bitch!

[Julia36]

Stopgam, please read this book, it shows how strange the universe really is at low level:

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0691024170

You have built a whole philosophy on 19th century ideas, please broaden your horizons.

Einstein was a wonderfully bright guy but he was a product of another era in physics - the same can be said about Galileo or Aristoteles too....

Which bit of quantum theory dont you think I'm unaware of?

NB I dont dispute the astonishing weirdness of it not the accuracy of its results just the conclusion that it's non-determinist when we haven't observed a fraction of what it is yet.

[platypus]

Well, you seem to view everything from a very classical perspective. Since local hidden variable theories have been discounted, what are you then, a superdeterminist?

https://en.wikipedia...uperdeterminism

[Julia36]

Quantum Archaeology is NOT in conflict with Quantum Theory, I am expressing my own personal doubts that quantum theory is a final theory.

I guess so, I'm instinctively against a quantum world that is in conflict with relativity and explained as non-causal when we dont yet know what is going on.

It is an accurate theory for predictions...but that's just more useful for QA.


"No-one understands Quantum Theory" Richard Feynman.

As a philosopher I keep an open mind. I have seen silly explanations accepted in physics only to be overturned decades later, and people wondered how intelligent men ever could believe that (eg the universe was spontaneously, non-causally created (over-turned by Ed Witten's M Theory; gas in a tank is chaos/random - over turned by Einstein)

There are many other examples...eg there is a superposition of universal wavelength with infinite infinities of parallel worlds, that collapses into one timeline when you observe it (overturned by Many World's interpretation
that returns SOME of Quantum Theory to absolute determinism).
I dont know enough about quantum theory to challenge non-causality, but effects of quantum gravity are bound to be involved, and it is true that strong and weak nuclear force look different although they are just nuclear force.

I dont think quantum theory is the final word on the microscopic universe.


1. Quantum Archaeology is NOT in conflict with cryonics...both need future technologies to recover people.

2. Coming calculators and processing is going to be MUCH bigger than what we have today, and there is already a maths to juggle with infinities.

3. We are on an accelerating trend of technology advance.


However, quantum archaeology is construed in classical physics, and will incorporate quantum mechanics where called for.

I expect that to be very little, but it doesn't matter if the calculation machines expected on target.

We should be able to calculate molecules in the oceans with their histories.

That seems fantastic, but it is the argument of scale.

The fact predictions are highly achievable in the quantum world makes it obvious retroductions may be.


the important thing is the classical world for reconstructions of men.
the information in it that exists in the present can be gathered - and is being gathered - and from it we can define history with increasing definiteness and detail.
We need to detail it down to 5 nanometres (though I'm not replying on this, hence 'quantum' archaeology')

all the stuff that formed human memories is in the human world and not the quantum world.

You're not a futurist platypus?

You're getting hung up on no information about the deceased being extant in the present: I understand that as it challenges the need for cryonics, but safety as suspension is absolutely necessary.

Information doesn't have to be recaptured in the present eg by chasing radiation round the cremation parlor, but can be configures from many sources:

eh It would be possible to construct most people's approximate DNA going back 000's of years. More, you can plot DNA changes thru time and read of people's thru time.

Onto that you can superimpose the environmental record plus all the other records.

Hey I'm being conservative....loads of chaps think we can simulate the entire universe

Cryonics MUST NOT attack Quantum Archaeology as a competitor but should work with it as we aim to resurrect a completely different class of people and resurrection technologies will be similar.

Also we can learn a lot from each theory and the sole aim is scientific truth.

I have some bottle posting this on a cryonic's site, but Robert Ettinger was briefly engaged in the quantum archaeology debate - quoted in the essay @ some length:
https://sites.google...tumarchaeology/

and we had some contact over decades. Seems to me a cryonicist's best shot is to see where to place QA and work with it as another branch of transhumanism?


My judgement is QA will bring a flood of people into cryonics.

Edited by stopgam, 19 December 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[npcomplete]

...snip...

I'm not sure that the computer needed to calculate this needs to be bigger than the universe itself; you could argue that human biology is infinitely complex in some ways, yet the data fits into DNA.

One can write very short algorithm that produces chaotic/fractal results. The Mandelbrot-set is infinitely complex but the code to produce it fits easily in the back of an envelope.
...snip...

You might enjoy reading about Kolmogorov Complexity, which is a more realistic measure of complexity that relates to your comments above.

I just wanted to thank you platypus for massive patience. You have done a good job here! There is a reason why physicists don't *usually* post in or read these types of threads (time, patience, inappropriate audience). I wish I had your patience!

I also want to thank stopgam for the many excellent cartoons and images. I will definitely send some of them to my physicist friends.

Carry on. This is a fun thread.

[Julia36]

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

[Julia36]

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

& it seems to me we're at cross -purposes.

Quantum Archaeology is a precursor to science not a science yet but a research area.

I really dont buy the argument that the micro world is non-deterministic because we cant measure velocity and position. There are many things is physics that are important and capable of measurement eg fields.

I dont accept ad hominem as argument from 3 of you who seem to be using Schopenhauer's 38 tricks to win an argument:
www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

Newton, Darwin and Einstein were all attacks the last 2 still attacked a lot, despite their work being unparalleled visionary, insightful and correct. Newton and Darwin refused to engage in argument because people were attacking them this, and a pamphlet was circulated "100 authors against Einstein" who retorted 'if I was wrong one would have been enough.

It is VERY hard to criticize something you haven't read, haven't understood, and wont imagine.

I suspect you think the work blasphemy, but it is just joining the dots on a cosmic scale.

The three main objections are outlined on the first page and their defeats.

Galileo and Einstein are indeed still important. Their maxims of science all too rarely applied and thought.

Although Einstein had better scientists around him, it was his philosophy that was towering.

Planck is stating an unseen intelligent mind behind 'the spooky action at distance' ((Einstein) as an explanation of the quantum world.

Bohr's model is old theory and many worlds is UTTERLY deterministic.

It is indeed possible to calculate what has been from the state of events in the 'present' in the quantum world.

Were it not we could never make any predictions whatsoever and freedom in the micro-world would be equivalent to lawlessness and immeasurably.

But it is not unmeasurable...the 2012 Noble Prize for Physics went for measurement and observation of a quantum system.


The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2012 has been awarded to Serge Haroche (left), Collège de France and École Normale Supérieure, both France, and David Wineland (right), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, for their ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measurement and manipulation of individual quantum systems

Far from me being out of date or in 19th century science, I am ahead and already ideating a quantum archaeology grid.

I challenge Feynman, Bohr, Planck and quite a few others from what I've read/heard.

There may well be laws that sweep aside Cause and Effect, but they would have to sweep aside science, for probability is a part of causality and the quantum world is demonstrably both lawful and probabilistic.

Platypus has avoided replying to my contentions on a lawful quantum world meaning retrodiction and which is already demonstrably predictable, therefore causal, and I reiterate

Einstein is correct that EVERYTHING is determined.

It is determined for the field as well as for the superposition, for the lepton and well as for the quark.

There is NOTHING anywhere that exists but by the causal laws of science acting to limit what it must and what it cannot do.

And that holds for the probability cloud of the electron.

The light beam which is restricted to speed.

The

• GAUGE AND HIGGS BOSONS (gamma, g, W, Z, ...)
• gamma
• g (gluon)
• graviton
• W boson
• Z boson
• Higgs Bosons (H0 and H+-),
• Heavy Bosons, Other Than Higgs Bosons,
• Axions (A0) and Other Very Light Bosons,
• LEPTONS (e, mu, tau, neutrinos, heavy leptons ...)
• electron
• muon
• tau
• Heavy Charged Lepton
• Neutrino Properties
• Number of Neutrino Types
• Double-beta Decay
• Note on Neutrinoless Double-beta Decay
• Neutrino Mixing
• Heavy Neutral Leptons,
• QUARKS (u, d, s, c, b, t, ...)
• LIGHT QUARKS --- u, d, s
• c quark
• b quark
• t quark
• b' quark (4**th Generation)
• t' quark (4**th Generation)
• MESONS (pi, K, D, B, psi, Upsilon, ...)
• LIGHT UNFLAVORED MESONS (S = C = B = 0)
• OTHER LIGHT UNFLAVORED MESONS (S = C = B = 0)
• STRANGE MESONS (S = + −1, C = B = 0)
• CHARMED MESONS (C = + −1)
• CHARMED, STRANGE MESONS (C = S = +−1)
• BOTTOM MESONS (B = +−1)
• BOTTOM, STRANGE MESONS (B = +−1, S = −+1)
• BOTTOM, CHARMED MESONS (B = +−1, C = −+1)
• c cbar MESONS
• b bbar MESONS
• NON-q qbar CANDIDATES
• BARYONS (p, n, Lambda_b, Xi, ...)
• N BARYONS (S = 0, I = 1/2)
• DELTA BARYONS (S = 0, I = 3/2)
• LAMBDA BARYONS (S = -1, I = 0)
• SIGMA BARYONS (S = -1, I = 1)
• XI BARYONS (S = -2, I = 1/2)
• OMEGA BARYONS (S = -3, I = 0)
• CHARMED BARYONS (C = +1)
• DOUBLY-CHARMED BARYONS (C = + 2)
• BOTTOM BARYONS (B = -1)
• Magnetic Monopoles
• Supersymmetric Particles
• Quark and Lepton Compositeness
• WIMPs and Other Particles

all are in slavery to the undefleable laws of science.

Far from me being a fool as 3 of you have suggested, -which is in contravention of debate rules on this forum and hurtful, the world, the universe and the multiverse are all governed by law.

It is this deep knowledge of the wonder and completeness of Causality that sets Einstein a giant among scientists, for every linear study screams at last we have the mysterious which proves their is religion and god... and then QT throws in consciousness, the observer and free will for good measure....which is the underlying tenat of the Quantum Theory, and men have always been drawn to the preposterous, fantastic blunder after blunder that sent science down so many cul-de-sacs, asserting unlawfulness, where law is everywhere self-evident.

The quantum world is cause and effect and it is for science to prove it a complete, determined system capable of not just probability prediction, but probability retrodiction, and with enough observation, of detailed mapping.

Edited by stopgam, 20 December 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[Julia36]

Edited by stopgam, 20 December 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[npcomplete]

HA!!! I love it! Even my wife would recognize me at the blackboard in this. When I said thank you for the cartoons I was sincere. Throughout my career I was the guy with pages and pages of advanced math, and a response similar to the cartoon. It is always good to laugh at yourself. My first reaction when reading this thread was "where are the pages of mathematics?"

I hope you didn't take what I said as an ad hominem attack. I really appreciate the thread and the cartoons. You mention on page 1 that you are an armchair scientist. Then on page 3 you said "Newton, Darwin and Einstein were all attacks the last 2 still attacked a lot". There is nothing wrong (and everything right) about questioning traditional beliefs. It is worth pointing out however that Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were already scientists (no armchair involved) when they pushed the envelope. Trust me on this, it is a lot easier to push the envelope while inside the system, after you have publications in refereed journals. It is not impossible, but hard to make an impact or get attention from an armchair. Once you have some "street cred" with other scientists things open up (like government grants, etc.)

You are in an area where mathematics is the language of choice. Use it. That would be like somebody on this site talking about nutrition but not using chemistry and biology etc. to make a point.

You also mentioned quantum computers in this thread. They are not magic, and some problems still appear to be "hard" (in the computational complexity sense) on a QC, like the current belief leaning towards "square root speedup" at best for np-complete problems via Grover's algorithm for unstructured search, unless we relax the "linear" part of quantum mechanics and field theory:

http://arxiv.org/pdf...h/9801041v1.pdf

Now for a really good time, visit the root page and start reading, http://arxiv.org/

I really didn't mean to stifle your attempts to think outside the box, but expressing your thoughts in the natural language of physics (mathematics) might be more effective.

Now keep those cartoons coming, I LOVE them.

[Julia36]

Thanks. Very strong of you to apologize!
I thought that cartoon might appeal. NP= -/+ P ideas do my head in. I look for a new kind of maths like Woolfram and was tortured @ Oxford in post grad Mathematical Logic. There are pure syetms of logic that are utterly true.

ONE error and the whole system halts as false.





(Feynman)

I think you mistake me. I am a philosopher-poet. Possibly divided by a common language Science v Arts

Science is my interest and I have NO expertise in it other than a surface understanding of parts.
I find applying for any kind of grant funny...to pay for what? Capitalism isn't the only form of Civilization. I cant imagine it hard to make a few million. You invent something and mass clone it. A few over at Kurzweilai.net thought I was joking so I demonstrated it. It is certainly easier than science.

In Europe it is socialism (a mixed economy breed of communism and capitalism), and a pension from birth as a basic human right (about $1000 a week) is being seriously discussed......failed first attempt in Swiss Parliament, but it;s time is come with accelerating technology. I doubt it would be more than 20 yrs universally in EU.

Technology is coming very fast....faster than intuition gauges. I dont know about a Singularity but the real concern in the UK now is Superintelligence safety

http://www.nickbostr.../ethics/ai.html



QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY
:
I had hoped to kick this idea into play and that was my work done.

I dont think it up to me to test it and I've put FAR more into it than is healthy for it. the original version was 3000 words but someone told me no-one would take anything so short seriously, so I've stuffed it out to 60,000 words like a christmas goose.

No scientist could see the work of another scientist in it but it;s an idea than I'd sure is possible to run with. I IN NO WAY compare myself to Darwin and didn't mean that except as analogy.

Edited by stopgam, 21 December 2012 - 02:56 AM.

[npcomplete]

...snip...
I think you mistake me. I am a philosopher-poet.
...snip...
No scientist could see the work of another scientist in it but it;s an idea than I'd sure is possible to run with.

I think it was clear from the outset that you weren't a scientist. That is not meant as an insult. What I thought was interesting though was that you were interested in presenting a poster/flier at a Church Turing workshop (tough audience). I suppose I should mention that I am on your home turf here in the philosophy forum. I found your thread since it was on the index page with a title that included the phrase "Church Turing". Those two words, to somebody with a moniker like "npcomplete", are like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Your reaction to quantum theory is fairly common even among first year physics students. Sometimes they object on philosophical grounds, and the objection creates a sort of mental block against studying the topic. I would suggest just taking it as axiomatic, and proceed with that understanding in learning the underlying theory. Once you have a firm understanding of the theory and the underlying mathematics it should be easier to critique, and have people pay attention to your criticism. Regardless of age, it is almost never too late to change paths and learn new things if you are really interested.

Anyway, thanks again for the cartoons, and I have downloaded some of my favorites. That last cartoon reminded me of my usual statement that I went into theoretical physics to make the really big bucks and to meet physics groupies!

[Julia36]

npcomplete:

So to summarize what you're saying,

you're not trying to insult me.
I shouldn't be at the Turing Church workshop; I am ignorant of the quantum theory and my understanding is like that of a 1st year physics student; I should go away and learn some quantum theory; I am still not too old to learn what you have learned; you see my main function as providing you with cartoons because you went into physics a long time ago and know much more than me.

The first page of Quantum Archaeology which explains it is constructed in the classical world.

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

I agree I dont understand the Quantum Theory, but some of it is in conflict, and no-one understand Quantum Theory according to Feynmann not 2nd yr 3 rd year student...and they dont understand it because their professors dont understand it.

(Feynman lecturing at 21.40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZMXWmlp9g
)


You cannot have contradictions Where they exist check your promises one at least will be wrong.


:




QA is futurist but repeating ad hominem attacks wont wash. Although I can understand why you think QA is an attack on cryonics, that is only a superficial understanding of it and it must be a massive help to it.

No-one understand quantum theory, and you have nor replied to my points

a) that archaeology will advance to a level where it can recreate the past past the meso level;
b) that techniques to do it are already extant and mass calculations expected in hypercomputation

The idea will stand or fail on its predictions.

I expect we'll resurrect 160 BILLION people in 20-40 years and vast detailed grids - some reaching back billions of years with trillions of moving variables - have ALREADY been constructed - at some point the quantum world will be marked in too.

Before then we may well have enough to begin the first historical resurrections of the accurate people.

I reiterate if the quantum world has law, those laws are necessarily causal and calling them non-determinist is playing with words.

There is nothing special about maths..it is a shorthand for number theory.

The fact Quantum Archaeology is attacked is not surprizing, the fact that it is attacked in ad hominems shows there isn't an argument against it surfacing.



Because of the many histories, it is not probable we would resurrected a simulation, but the actual person.

as the quantum world operates by laws, it is predictable.

As it is predictable it is retrodictable.

Edited by stopgam, 21 December 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[npcomplete]

npcomplete:

So to summarize what you're saying,

you're not trying to insult me.
I shouldn't be at the Turing Church workshop; I am ignorant of the quantum theory and my understanding is like that of a 1st year physics student; I should go away and learn some quantum theory; I am still not too old to learn what you have learned; you see my main function as providing you with cartoons because you went into physics a long time ago and know much more than me.

The first page of Quantum Archaeology which explains it is constructed in the classical world.

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

I agree I dont understand the Quantum Theory, but some of it is in conflict, and no-one understand Quantum Theory according to Feynmann not 2nd yr 3 rd year student...and they dont understand it because their professors dont understand it.

(Feynman lecturing at 21.40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZMXWmlp9g
)


You cannot have contradictions Where they exist check your promises one at least will be wrong.


:




QA is futurist but repeating ad hominem attacks wont wash. Although I can understand why you think QA is an attack on cryonics, that is only a superficial understanding of it and it must be a massive help to it.

No-one understand quantum theory, and you have nor replied to my points

a) that archaeology will advance to a level where it can recreate the past past the meso level;
b) that techniques to do it are already extant and mass calculations expected in hypercomputation

The idea will stand or fail on its predictions.

I expect we'll resurrect 160 BILLION people in 20-40 years and vast detailed grids - some reaching back billions of years with trillions of moving variables - have ALREADY been constructed - at some point the quantum world will be marked in too.

Before then we may well have enough to begin the first historical resurrections of the accurate people.

I reiterate if the quantum world has law, those laws are necessarily causal and calling them non-determinist is playing with words.

There is nothing special about maths..it is a shorthand for number theory.

The fact Quantum Archaeology is attacked is not surprizing, the fact that it is attacked in ad hominems shows there isn't an argument against it surfacing.



Because of the many histories, it is not probable we would resurrected a simulation, but the actual person.

as the quantum world operates by laws, it is predictable.

As it is predictable it is retrodictable.

Seriously, I was suggesting that you (a self described philosopher-poet) learn the language and culture of physics and mathematics in order to better critique the theories that bother you on a philosophical level. You respond by saying that I "think QA is an attack on cryonics"? Where did I bring up cryonics? (please don't answer) I think you have me confused with somebody else. Thanks for the rambling responses though.

I don't know any real scientist that believes that quantum mechanics and field theory, or any current physical theory for that matter, is the "final answer", and we all acknowledge that there are problems in theory. Something "new and improved" will come along, it always does, and will show QM to be an approximation to the new theory under certain circumstances... just like today's current theories compared to those of 100 years ago do a better job of predicting experimental outcomes but reduce to classical theory under certain assumptions (correspondence principle in QM, low velocities and gravitational fields in relativity).

I always regret (after the fact) wandering into these types of threads. I just got sucked in by the Church-Turing bit thinking there might be serious discussion of computability and computational complexity (as one might expect with Church-Turing), but now that "I know" it won't happen again, that is my fault, sorry.

Sheesh, I came into this forum to learn about fish oil, pomegranate, etc., not to talk physics and math. bye bye.

[Julia36]

so farewell then npcomplete,
Thou wert not to see the approaching street,
warrior whose only gear was attack
shouted at the sun rise sure it wasn't coming back!
quantum archaeology is breaking
dermatology is baking

QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY 5/9

"No man against my fate sends me to Hades..." The Iliad

Kenington's marble effigy of Lawrence St Martin's Church, Dorset

Archaeology moves down some astonishing pathways. After opening Tutankhamen's tomb in 1922, it is about to burst onto the world stage again, by theorizing resurrection science.
Man is not so special his brain is outside the laws of physics, nor is his entire history nor thought so extreme it cannot be recreated in a laboratory with sufficient computing. Random number crunching, at worst, would chart all possibilities of all possible events in our world. That would guarantee everyone is resurrected as sets of equations or simulations. From there microrobots could rebuild them. It would also build other possible people, but your ancestors would certainly be included.

This logical argument has no valid counter arguments and cannot logically be refuted. Tipler states it is self-evident to occur at the end of time in our universe, - at the Omega point. Even that prediction may look conservative. He is a distinuished but elderly scientist and his prediction may be even faster when accelerating technology growth is multiplied by accelerating science growth. Human capacity may have passed resurrection capability in under 40 years at least as abstractions (maths) and micro robotics advanced enough to reconfigure the whole of human archaeology including living and dead peoples will surely follow. It will happen quickly because vast areas of technology and science are speeding up, helping each other to accelerate what they can do. Those breakthroughs make bigger breakthroughs happen, in turn leading to massive leaps.

In coming machines, we could compute every possible version of your ancestors. But the picture is not so bleak nor the locations of where they are impossibly innumerable. We will not have to calculate every possible human with every possible thought in every possible environment and configure complex probabilities and causal pathways to them all to find the correct one!

Resurrection is a great and ancient dream.

"All men dream...but not equally... the dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they may dream their dreams with open eyes, and make it possible." Lawrence of Arabia

We have dreampt of resurrection and archaeologists will make it happen.

REDUCING THE SAMPLES

QA will find ways of reducing the samples drawing chronology lines of knowable events in the quantum archaeology grid (which be be expressed mathematically as well as graphically, or left in computer code). One elimination procedure which would have taken a million trillion man hours for a single general history line will be done instantly by coming systems.

At each elimination zillions of impossible histories will be crossed out because they conflict with known data, and these in turn will eliminate zillions more that spend from them like branching trees. Find the exact person to describe may be like finding the exact leaf of a tree in an ancient forest, or exact snowflake in any given storm.

Most people wince at this. That is encouraging because they realize the size of calculations involved.

At first it seems ridiculous to attempt, but with the coming tools of statistics and machine intelligence, the manipulation of numbers is not only viable, it is easy.

I sat in lectures at the Pentagon-funded AI@50 where 150 brilliant scientists had gathered to assess artificial intelligence and saw the great Solomonov talking about accurate data extraction from impossibly large masses of numbers.

His lecture was electrifying as he showed how to find needles in haystacks by statistics that seemed magic. Professor Bart Selman later poached by the defence department, confirmed his work and showed even more ways to extract exact requested and specific information from zillions of data, analysts had regarded as white noise because it was too much to be useful.

I rushed to quiz them both during their lectures and by email about what and exactly how their techniques could recover specific instances, because one early stumbling block in QA was data was so large, people thought it useless: 'the answer is in there but it could never be extracted' was the general attitude. 'Never' is a shortening time in accelerating science. That which was impossible on Monday, is only unthinkable on Tuesday; by Wednesday it is merely absurd on Thursday crackpots were saying 'why not?' on Friday they are attempting it, and by the week-end mainstream scientists are achieving it everyone knew it was doable all along!

This is paraphrasing Schopenhauer's 3 stages of Truth, but that which is regarded as impossible may only be improbable, and in the vastness of the cosmos, if it is only improbable, that means it will certainly happen.

Things moving down many rivers and disparate disciplines of science and technology a re now converging, in part because the internet enabled synthesis, but also because mathematicians are inventing ways to do sums which were only in doable in fables in the 19th century.

The architecture of any QA recovery was so vast any mistake - even one error - could ruin it. I managed to get on a post grad course in mathematical logic at Oxford University which showed how to cross-check the veracity of an entire (large) system. Despite being the class dunce, I learned the basis of Z and confirmed it could be used to check huge QA resurrection calculations.
Resurrection will become a basic civil and human right, as it becomes clear that it is indeed possible to raise the ancient dead with our coming technology. That could happen soon as we construct the quantum archaeology grid - a dense matrix of events and their connections. Using coming quantum computers which will do the same as all present computers running to the end of the universe in a few seconds, this might be a very easy task.

We must outline probable scientific methods by which resurrection may happen, and invite people to contest the validity of these assertions.
People may insert into their wills the legal right only to be resurrected into specific areas or future times. Many legal issues will be thrashed out when QA becomes common knowledge and as different sciences debate its veracity.

Although wonderful things are ahead of us, things of terror - beyond the wildest horror - also await us. We may be like mayflies hatching before universal predators, with insufficient technologies of defence and as naive as island peoples looking at the first gunboats approaching.


THERE ARE MANY PAST HISTORIES YOU WONT FIND THE CORRECT ONE?

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!" Sherlock Holmes. The Sign of Four

This objection is from The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, that states the world is splitting into more at each event.
It is answered from statistical dynamics within Many Worlds maths.
All past and all future possible histories are correct in that they do tend to exist.
However any defined history will have effect markers in the present able to converge to tributary specificity beyond out present science to configure, and conformable as the correct histories by cross-calculation proofs as done in simultaneous equations from other markers and marker effects.
The required past, calculated within a set of known present markers, is not all the past but a narrowing field of the past as you begin to eliminate irrelevant histories by impossibilities, calculating probabilities that will tend to 100%. The short answer is we should resurrect all of them.
Computers are coming that will surpass human powers of abstraction, calculation and all sciences in all fields. we will be able to machine calculate to unimaginably small sizes our greatest minds have not get described.


WHAT ABOUT LAW OF ENTROPY?
Archaeologists are constantly restoring order! It was thought that as things tend to disorder, eventually the universe would die in a heat death of lukewarm radiation, as there wouldn't be available energy to restore order and counter information loss. This may not be true as it is thought our universe is but one of many in M Theory.
Much information recovery will be above sub-atomic levels, but even at levels down to the Planck scale, knowledge of the laws of the quantum world should enable reconstructions.
"Is MWT reversible? Hard to say for sure, since reversibility and entropy in this context can be a bit slippery, due to it's subjective nature. I can see the argument for saying it is reversible: entropy can be thought of as information loss from individual universes as they split (the information is diluted with each split), so viewed from the overall multiverse perspective there is no information loss, hence no entropy increase hence reversible. But on the other hand, there are processes (like inflation that drove the expansion of our universe) that produce heat (i.e. entropy), which are irreversible." (MC Price - to me 2012).
Despite entropy, recovery may still be possible from present data by probabilizing, and cross-referencing the huge data banks that are coming on line. We can calculate what must have been in astonishing ways. Your DNA is an historical record going back millions of years, and like tree trunk rings holding information about the environment.
Not only human DNA but all DNA holds such information.. Separately it may not say much, but synthesized it uncovers the past these archaeological techniques may counter the effects of entropy.
Particles decay by law and dont please themselves how they change! This area seems complex to us but at today's rate of progress the next 100 years will see 20,000 years of advance. it would be a brave forecaster whop thought that in 20,000 years we wouldn't have unimaginably vast computing resources! The quantum world is not chaos but complex order, and we will manipulate it and map it as Artificial intelligence arrives.

There is a list of all known sub-atomic particles . It will expand as more are found (CERN is hunting for the Higgs Boson).It is a USA government site and the best available (http://pdg.lbl.gov). It lists things like:

• GAUGE AND HIGGS BOSONS (gamma, g, W, Z, ...)
• gamma
• g (gluon)
• graviton
• W boson
• Z boson
• Higgs Bosons (H0 and H+-),
• Heavy Bosons, Other Than Higgs Bosons,
• Axions (A0) and Other Very Light Bosons,
• LEPTONS (e, mu, tau, neutrinos, heavy leptons ...)
• electron
• muon
• tau
• Heavy Charged Lepton
• Neutrino Properties
• Number of Neutrino Types
• Double-beta Decay
• Note on Neutrinoless Double-beta Decay
• Neutrino Mixing
• Heavy Neutral Leptons,
• QUARKS (u, d, s, c, b, t, ...)
• LIGHT QUARKS --- u, d, s
• c quark
• b quark
• t quark
• b' quark (4**th Generation)
• t' quark (4**th Generation)
• MESONS (pi, K, D, B, psi, Upsilon, ...)
• LIGHT UNFLAVORED MESONS (S = C = B = 0)
• OTHER LIGHT UNFLAVORED MESONS (S = C = B = 0)
• STRANGE MESONS (S = + −1, C = B = 0)
• CHARMED MESONS (C = + −1)
• CHARMED, STRANGE MESONS (C = S = +−1)
• BOTTOM MESONS (B = +−1)
• BOTTOM, STRANGE MESONS (B = +−1, S = −+1)
• BOTTOM, CHARMED MESONS (B = +−1, C = −+1)
• c cbar MESONS
• b bbar MESONS
• NON-q qbar CANDIDATES
• BARYONS (p, n, Lambda_b, Xi, ...)
• N BARYONS (S = 0, I = 1/2)
• DELTA BARYONS (S = 0, I = 3/2)
• LAMBDA BARYONS (S = -1, I = 0)
• SIGMA BARYONS (S = -1, I = 1)
• XI BARYONS (S = -2, I = 1/2)
• OMEGA BARYONS (S = -3, I = 0)
• CHARMED BARYONS (C = +1)
• DOUBLY-CHARMED BARYONS (C = + 2)
• BOTTOM BARYONS (B = -1)
• Magnetic Monopoles
• Supersymmetric Particles
• Quark and Lepton Compositeness
• WIMPs and Other Particles

Quantum Archaeology will cause us to look differently on loss and tragedy, forcing a change in the human psyche.

Though much is lost, the number of lines pointing into the past are so vast that almost everything in the present would have to be wiped out for the past lost. We can draw recovery lines by plotting backwards on a quantumarchaeology grid. There is plenty of energy available because we believe we can eventually create energy and even make universes.
The Law of Entropy states things get more disordered. If an agent like a person or a machine orders an environment, it takes increasing energy to restore the order. If the universe was a closed system, this would doom any attempt to metabolize it in an intelligence. However M Theory posits that our universe is but one of many, and we may be able to create energy, and universes, and that there are infinite universes.
Data is certain arrangements events, expressed as differing energies.
Data is constantly arranging and rearranging, but it absolutely has to move according to the laws of science and not in unpredictable ways. In finite bubble like our universe that means anything has a limited number of expressions of its component data. With advancing measurement and calculation techniques, the quantum world is opening to scrutiny, and its laws are being uncovered. Even if it does not, cross referencing and other statistical techniques will enable full and essentially accurate resurrections.

Death is tragedy but can science find ways to describe the past in subatomic detail? Romeo & Juliet.

Moving atoms inside molecules were 'photographed' for the first time in 2012 using lasers. It is not such a leap from atoms to sub atoms.
Cause and effect is an astoundingly successful science theory. Coupled with probability we have powerful prediction and retrodiction tools.
Every thought you have ever had is the inevitable resultant of things moving according to scientific laws, and this was also true for your ancestors, whether they were ape men or amino acids.
It is therefore not possible that an event in our limited world history could be lost - given sufficient computing power, or great statistical techniques for recreating information. More, the amount of computing power needed for such a calculation estimated now at below 10^42 operations per second is likely to be surpassed both by quantum computers and also by classical computers given enough time. And time is what the dead have plenty of. It doesn't matter to the dead how long it takes to raise them.
It's important to note that Quantum Archaeology is not trying to reverse the cosmos, but to calculate where the state of what things must have been as mathematical formulas and spacetime coordinates. For this reason alone it does not violate the law of entropy.
The answer to this most serious of all objections to Quantum Archaeology is then that there are so many starting points available near infinite lines of calculation will aggregate to the required event points.

We manipulate quantum particles already. CERN particle accelerator is an early atom machine but it is cumbersome and expensive.

THE GENIUS OF MATHEMATICS

Maths is a sublime genius! It is a basket of short-cuts for doing things.
Logic and statistics are two of it's branches, and it can reveal answers to things that are so accurate and penetrating it looks like magic. Unfortunately it is vast subject and no-one in the world knows the whole of it. Most people have no idea of what a powerful force it is to discover things thought hidden for ever; if they did they may feel uneasy talking to mathematicians who, with a few swift calculations can deduce what you had for breakfast yesterday using observation, probability and logic.

At present the first general mathematics programme done by computers (Woolfram's Mathematica) is in widespread use. You need some maths knowledge to use it.
"Features of Mathematica include:

• Elementary mathematical function library
• Special mathematical function library
• Matrix and data manipulation tools including support for sparse arrays
• Support for complex number, arbitrary precision, interval arithmetic and symbolic computation
• 2D and 3D data and function visualization and animation tools
• Solvers for systems of equations, diophantine equations, ODEs, PDEs, DAEs, DDEs and recurrence relations
• Numeric and symbolic tools for discrete and continuous calculus
• Multivariate statistics libraries including fitting, hypothesis testing, and probability and expectation calculations on over 100 distributions.
• Constrained and unconstrained local and global optimization
• Programming language supporting procedural, functional and object oriented constructs
• Toolkit for adding user interfaces to calculations and applications
• Tools for image processing^[and morphological image processing including image recognition
• Tools for visualizing and analysing graphs
• Tools for combinatoric problems
• Tools for text mining including regular expressions and semantic analysis
• Data mining tools such as cluster analysis, sequence alignment and pattern matching
• Number theory function library
• Tools for financial calculations including bonds, annuities, derivatives, options etc.
• Group theory functions
• Libraries for wavelet analysis on sounds, images and data
• Control systems libraries
• Continuous and discrete integral transforms
• Import and export filters for data, images, video, sound, CAD, GIS, document and biomedical formats
• Database collection for mathematical, scientific, and socio-economic information and access to WolframAlpha data and computations
• Technical word processing including formula editing and automated report generating
• Tools for connecting to DLLs. SQL, Java, .NET, C++, FORTRAN, CUDA, OpenCL and http based systems
• Tools for parallel programing
• Using both "free-form linguistic input" (a natural language user interface) and Mathematica language in notebook when connected to the Internet" (wiki)

This has made its futurist creator a billionaire, but is not yet high artificial intelligence. Coming A.I.'s will allow you to talk to you computer in general terms (Apple is already this) silently and quickly. Faster than you ask it will anticipate and you. It will. do all the maths needed without you needing to know any maths at all.

What seems hidden in the past exists solely by the laws of physics and must inevitably be revealed by mathematics which will reverse engineer any situation in an instant.

IS DETERMINISM NECESSARY FOR QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY?

Non Neumann dismissed 'random' as impossible and Einstein dismissed non-determinism as impossible.
It would be very hard to assert no laws of nature operate in the quantum world. the minute we know laws operate there it is playing with words to call them non-determined since a law states X happens in Y situation. Writings on non-determinism are confused and in conflict.

"Scientific research is based on the assumption that all events, including the actions of mankind, are determined by the laws of nature." Einstein.

The non-determined world is again a deterministic one with Many Worlds Theory.

Determinism is the case. No-one understands quantum theory. The very small is beyond our present measuring ability but laws govern its world. Quantum computers are new and inefficient. Non-determinism is a great theory but may have yielded to the Many Worlds Interpretation which returns the complete cosmos to cause and effect, within it's own system. Also there may be a conflict between non-determinism and the very existence of laws, and some philosophers incorrectly cite non-determinism as proof of human free will, wrongly assuming free will and determinism are in conflict, whereas the compatability argument has long held they are different way of looking at the same system. Non-determinism is historically cited when systems are complex for mankind has a superstitious nature and scientists are not immune from this..

David Bohm defined the alleged problem:"In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined."

In Quantum Theory (1951) Bohm set out to show the quantum world had an underlying reality although he failed to find a non-local hidden variable.

Relativity and Quantum mechanics cannot both be right, one or both are wrong and it wasn't until Everett that the muddle was solved, revealing quantum theory to be indeed casual.

Proponents of a non-determined universe at the very small scale has been asserted by some formidable physicists including Jacques Monod (Nobel Prize 1965) essay "Chance and necessity" Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize 1932), Sir Arthur Eddington, Max Born (Nobel Prize 1954) and Murray Gell-Mann. Opponents include Hugh Everett who first proposed the many-worlds interpretation and Bryce DeWitt whose has currently one of the mainstream interpretations of the cosmos. If the latter is correct, the known universe is utterly deterministic and parallel worlds split for ever at each event.

Non-determinist theorists have been ridiculed in the media, but failed to understand quantum causality.

It is crucially important for quantum scientists to recognize that The Many Worlds Theory has returned physics to Cause and Effect (as Einstein had predicted would have to happen). We presently use probability to describe the very small but probability underpins the whole of science. It is our mathematics which has become special at these levels, accurately predicting patterns which we are presently unable to observe.It is a scientific fact that where there are laws there is cause and effect and probability necessarily implies causality, although quantum archaeology has been attacked for this logical statement.
My own view is that cause and effect underpins our universe and quantum theory is incomplete or wrong. However I want to reflect quantum archaeology and so long as there are laws that rule the heavens it must work.

QUANTUM INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
If we have to configure details of the dead down to the to the quantum scale to describe the them, that still looks possible as everything in the known universe obey laws, and as we discover them we are able to reconfigure necessary events. We could, in any case, permute ALL possible combinations of events that have ever been thus recreating all peoples who have ever lived as a starting point. From these near infinite data sets we can begin to eliminate the impossible lines by parallel cross-checking. None of this will be done by hand and all of it at speed so that we may be left with very few possible resurrection scenarios to chose from. As the quantum archaeology grid gets established, complex truth tables, and sophisticated architectural models like those enabled using "Z" I had pounded into me at Oxford, can dismiss the impossible.

Quantum information is now thought retrievable.

Once thought lost in decay, emerging ideas about refinding information are surfacing. One promising inquiry is at the University of Calgary’s Institute for Quantum Information Science (IQIS) Here researchers have demonstrated that perfectly "recovering the original quantum information from its imperfect copies." is a fact. "They also hypothesized an experiment to perform the perfect recovery of original quantum information." If successful, this may confirm Ettinger's hunch that there is a Law of Conservation of Information inside the realm of science.
We are approaching the knee of the curve of exponential quantum computation, thought likely to hit us in the 2020's. It looks like nothing much is happening then suddenly we take off. as acceleration velocity point is reached.

The knee of the curve- when technology explodes - will be dramatic..

HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM TIPLER'S VIEWS?

Tipler predicts resurrection at the end of the universe in computer simulations. Quantum archaeology predicts resurrection in 20-40 years as physical beings, ie not inside computers. Tiper predicts all possible variations of people will be resurrected in simulations, quantum archaeology is concerned with just one time line and one history.
Tipler assumes one, finite universe, Quantum archaeology assumes an infinite multiverse of universes and also assumes energy requirements could be met by creation of universes (our universe was created therefore a universe is possible to create with enough knowledge). Tipler's hypothesis posits a superbeing at an omega point, quantum archaeology doesn't require an omega point. However the idea is tracable to his work.

THERE ISN'T ROOM TO BRING BACK THE DEAD?
We will make and find new places to live in the cosmos when we have enough science to resurrect the dead. Such a time may be closer than many think if they consider computer ability trends. Kurzweil has shown men make predictions linearly. A guess as to how long something takes is based on the past and in a straight line. Your guess considers speeds of present day developments but technological change is speeding at exponential rates which the human mind is incapable of sensing. It can only be seen accurately on trend graphs like Moore's Law.

The push to colonise space is about to begin as Artficial intelligence explodes. Carina Nebula at the edge of the Milky Way (NASA).
As advanced artificial intelligence is constructed is is theorized by some scientists that we could bend and manipulate space-time. This happens whenever you walk or move but the changes are imperceptibly small. It may be that we acquire the skill to bend dimensions skilfully enough to give a world of space to anyone who wants one in their own home. Cities and the whole earth may become just portholes to personal space which could include areas vast and luxurious. however fantastic this seems, mastery in science is coming across all disciplines which are inciting speed of discovery in others and it is probable that this will happen as it is consistent with known laws of physics.
How Many People Have Ever Lived On Earth? About 106,000,000,000 according to the Population Reference Bureau going back to 50,000 BCE.

Asimov has dealt with this in his Foundation series, indicating empires will rise and fall and reinforce main branches as in genetic evolution. Asimov was exceptional because he helped set a code in science fiction where stories had to conform to possible science and couldn't be science fantasy.
Splits will undoubtedly happen and new cosmoses be created and die.

CONTINUITY STOPS SO THE RESURRECTEES ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE?
Despite time passing, so long as you accurately restore the deceased to their last state, repairing them to full health and youth, does not mean they are entirely different people. The key to men is their memories. There is great hope to assume we will be able to restore all memories, including some we thought were lost as we aged.
TRANSHUMANISM IS GETTING HEADLINES
Regarded as a group of crackpots initially, the vast finances they have (many are wealthy - some billionaires) and their impact on the world by forcing science fiction into science technology, means transhumanists are altering things The military and government have to examine what they are forecasting:

Growing incidence of Transhumanist terms in government and military publications.

This incurs huge duties on transhumanists to produce philosophies of high moral codes, not only to guide coming artificial technologies so that they do not cause genocide, but to give the comforts that other schools have long given, and not leave it to machines in the future to run amok to the machines' own self-evolved goals.


THE COMING OF ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE

The US Gvmt SYNAPSE project aims at mimicing the human brain.

A.G.I. (Artificial General Intelligence, also called 'Strong' and 'Super' Intelligence)) will have the biggest impact in the history of life, and possibly in the history of the known universe.

Generally in computing, memory and speed are changed or modified according to data fed into them, and data those changes themselves produce. There is a computing relationship between Intelligence, Memory, and Speed, written conveniently:

I=MS

This equation is useful in designing machine intelligence. Memory is a special thing. Our whole bodies are forms of pattern energies and modified or mutated patterns are passed on as memories from cell to new cell. It is better written 'memory modified at speed' because this is what learning is (Danny Kopec - to me AI@50 2006) When you learn something, you are modifying your memory. The speed at which you can do this makes you more or less intelligent, since it determines your success in problem solving.

The computer screen is coming alive: it can not only sense you touching it, it can now touch back.
Haptic technology raises itself out of its 2 dimensional world eg to create a keyboard you can feel. It is but a few steps to making it extend and do robotic tasks whilst you interact with it.

Haptic technology is breaking, promising truly interactive computing.

Convergent technology will join the internet with robots and 3d printers and mobile communications that will utilize the waste around you, like extracting pollution from the air, to build useful objects including food.. Permanent objects and machines may become things of the past as we gain mastery over assembly and deconstruction with coming machine intelligence.

We build bigger and bigger memory storage facilities each year (Google is building a storage centre the size of a town) and our speeds are already much faster than human. Speed is often simply the length of time it takes for a computer cycle, or traditionally, how many cycles the Central Processing Unit (C.P.U.) makes in one second. We can call the resulting processes floating operations per second (flops) and the Z3 was the first machine to achieve this in Berlin (bombed by the allies in 1943).

I J Good famously wrote "the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make". He worked with Turing at Bletchley Park cracking war codes and his use of "Ultra" had a special meaning. It was the designated word for allied intelligence signals. Later it was taken to mean superintelligence by common usage. Good was prolific, specializing in Bayesian statistics and probability to extract and predict information patterns.

Artificial just means 'man made' from artisan and artifact, and intelligence just means 'problem solving'. The words were strung together by the late John McCarthy for the 1956 Dartmouth Park Conference where a pioneering group of scientists met and planned how they would attempt to build A.I. By 1973 they had still not build it and it was ridiculed especially by the United Kingdom as impossible because of the combinatorial explosion- the bigger you made a system the more calculations it had to make- and departments were shut down (AI winter) in the UK, USA and Japan, which was almost all of them. A few mavericks kept going in it and by 2000 weak A.I. or particular specialist intelligent systems were everywhere.

The number of machines systems using A.I. is now so vast that the world would crunch to a halt if they were withdrawn, this is particularly true of the financial markets, and developed states have protocols for emergency action during solar storms.

A.I. is being constructed using reductionism and reverse engineering theory: looking at what problem needs to be solved then constructing automatic systems, mainly in software, to solve them. Chess and Jeopardy! are examples of weak A.I.s. and they are much faster than any living human solutions.
The defeat of the world chess champion Gary Kasparov by a computer was shocking in 1997, with Deep Blue examining 200,000,000 (two hundred million) moves a second:




It's impact was that money poured in to A.I. research again and by 2003 many universities world wide had some kind of A.I. department.

The same is happening after ibm Watson beat the best Jeapardy! human player..

Convergent systems are likely to be built with the umbrella of many skills as general A.I. becomes feasible (predicted for the late 2020's by Vinge)

There is no theoretical limit to how intelligent machines can get, and sub-disciplines of genetic algorithms, neural networks, and simulations generally are hurtling forward making better and braver intelligent auto-systems.

But A.G.I. (Artificial General Intelligence) also known as strong A.I. has not yet been achieved. One reason is that almost no team is attempting it as it is thought too difficult.

"We dont know how to build artificial intelligence so we are reverse engineering human intelligence" Professor Andrew Ng (to me 2005).

The human brain with the largest complex neocortex of any species has not been reverse engineered in enough detail yet, in 2012 the synapse is still not mapped completely, although estimates from those working on the human brain project (project blue brain) think it will be available in 2018-20. the idea is that if we can model the thinking part of the human brain accurately, we can factor it up in supercomputers and get acceleration from intelligence levels.

London A.I. Club has not assumed that has has different constructs.
Human intelligence is not confined to one human brain but the group and it is evolved by natural selection to function in a given environment - the world. One human brain when simulated may be incapable of intelligence alone.

1809 A fake A.I.Napoleon Bonaparte vs The Turk Napoleon playing in white was thrashed by a dwarf hidden inside.

Few scientists doubt that we will eventually build systems more intelligent in a general way than mankind, and that it may take over it's own intelligence increase, limited only by the laws of science. When this happens, any solvable problems like raising the dead will be solved in the blink of an eye.

The fun thing is to try and do it by long hand and get a good enough material together from a set of patchy ideas and insufficient knowledge to advent a discipline and effect a paradigm shift in people about dead not being dead. There is no scientific reason why the dead have to remain dead, and when A.G.I. is reached, resurrection will no doubt be part of the services a family doctor can perform!

VIEWING REAL HISTORY BY QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY

Before physical resurrection which will require robots of astounding precision and complexity, we are likely to be able to make accurate scenarios of past events to the planck level.

Battles, famous lives, climate events and disputed sequences will surely be laid bare for the public and blasted on to the internet to help educators and entertainment. It is therefore in large commercial companies' interests to back research into QA. Crowds would pack cinemas to see the actual Battle of Hastings or the murder of Julius Ceasar, with skillful director's cuts between actual scenes,and full interactive senses. These will be available long before the owners of those bodies are resurrected and demand copyright duties or evoke privacy laws as they return to the centre of world events.

Although I am impatient for quantum archaeology and wish the wealthy corporations and investors to begin backing research into it, it will surely arrive by osmosis as technology snowballs. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Yet the faster we have such capabilities, the sooner we can halt the pathos-filled suffering that pervades human and sentient experience. Suffering is what our bodies have evolved to deal with incursion and the elements, but Paradise Engineering seeks to find ways to correct this.

Paradise Engineering seeks to re-engineer suffering out of life forms.

TECHNOLOGY IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE STOPPED!

That may be correct, but how can you stop it?

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

Edited by stopgam, 22 December 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[Julia36]

Animals will be resurrected 1st as they have fewer brains bits to reconfigure.

Its easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity of resurrections, but that is solely an issue of scale

When sufficient calculation power is here, IT IS INEVITABLE we can map anyone who has ever lived.

Saying information has disappeared like magic into the quantum world is religious.

Every action causes and every event is caused.

Even in the quantum world.

Indeterminacy does not mean lawlessness, nor prohibits astoundingly accurate quantum predictions.

I wish we'd chosen a different term than non-causal, because it is misleading, and in a world that can only exist by limits and laws (which are the same thing) everything without exception is lined to something else.

If that were not the case it could not be proved to exist.

To resurrect a given rabbit could be attempted now.

we could test identical DNA clones in almost identical life environments.

There environments could be so accurately mechanized that each rabbit would have almost identical experiences timed to the
second.

The rabbits brains could be examined at death and see if their neural networks were almost the same.

In time the experiments could be so accurate I am sure that the result would be the rabbits brains would be identical.

It is true for men:

given the

1) starting DNA (and Quantum archaeology will submit ways to find this)
&
2) the known environment

you could state what the person was exactly, at the instance of death.


It is a great mistake to think of a human being as anything other than a bunch of numbers derived from biology, chemistry and physics and expressed in maths.




And if this is true for the body...it must be true for the brain.

The amazing thing is we're already doing maths and science at MUCH smaller levels than are needed for Quantum Archaeology, which requires the environment then sizes of about one metre (full body) to about 5 nanometres.

So the vast calculations aren't done in the quantum world but the meso world of men.
and hyper-computation with such things like Quantum computers (thought able to do near infinite calculations in almost nil time as they become efficient)
will be surpassed by super-recursive algorithms.

I urge you to consider Quantum Archaeology seriously.

Cheers

https://sites.google...umarchaeology2/


HELEN OF TROY

[platypus]

So how are you going to solve the initial value problem? How will you "calculate" what Lenin discussed in some smoky pub, which then subsequently altered the course of history for example? Please be specific and don't launch into those long non-neurotypical diverging rants!