2214 replies to this topic

[Julia36]

we can do maths symbolically - calculate and use massive shortcuts which slash factors down dramatically. Infinite maths and infinite computing are indeed viable.

And you base that statement on what exactly? Wishful thinking and computational mysticism?

Ho Platy. Kick out ad hominem will you...it's against argument
Maths is done symbolically by reduction to symbols nothing unusual here?

So x for instance can be calculated in an equation where it represents gravity a billion process equation.

Object oriented programming uses it.

Where you have repeats of groups of stuff you can use one symbol for the whole group.

Then calculating them thru you can derive answers that deliver symbolically, but can inflate at the end.

The human brain uses compression and inflation..

Cantor worked on infinity maths:

http://io9.com/58096...ion-to-infinity

he did it from set theory and proposed different order of infinity.



or Cantor's Diagonal argument:


Maybe you would like a crammer on YouTube

Edited by stopgam, 14 January 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Mority]

Reducing the needed computations has nothing to do with cardinal numbers. The computations we need are to a large extend irreducible. In the Link there is an error. Mathematicians dont ask whether the Continum hypothesis is true or not. It is undecidable. Hilberts Hotel wont help us to get infinite computational power either.

[platypus]

I didn't see anything resembling an argument for you cause in your posts stopgam. Stream-of-consciousness daydreaming has its place but it does not remove the need for a critical assessment of the evidence. So far you haven't provided anything concrete to overcome the insurmountable problems related to QA. Also, infinite processing power (or even near-infinite) will never be available, so you'll need to live with far less than that.

[Julia36]

Reducing the needed computations has nothing to do with cardinal numbers. The computations we need are to a large extend irreducible. In the Link there is an error. Mathematicians dont ask whether the Continum hypothesis is true or not. It is undecidable. Hilberts Hotel wont help us to get infinite computational power either.

Hi Mority


>>Reducing the needed computations has nothing to do with cardinal numbers. <<<
If you say so. I was thinking of symbols.

>>>>The computations we need are to a large extend irreducible.<<
Why,- which computations do you think we need? I dont find any of them irreducible.

>>>>In the Link there is an error.<<<<

Works fine for me??? What do you mean?

>>>>Mathematicians dont ask whether the Continum hypothesis is true or not. It is undecidable.<<<

Not true. Only by one way of testing it.

>>>Hilberts Hotel wont help us to get infinite computational power either.<<<<


ARGGGGG! the importance of it is perspective and how new maths is derived from seeming paradoxes

'Mathematicians' is a general group, and I'm not sure a thinker would like to be classified as anything.

It might be difficult generally because one has to juggle many disciplines at once, and very many perspectives, but NONE of those perspectives may contradict.
.There are maths definitions, but we can write our own


What seems important is that there is maths already for dealing with infinities. I dare say it's under developed but that must be true of many areas.


I sort of like the infinite hotel room: it;s cute.



The issue for me is that infinities can be written symbolically and calculated like anything else.

you can derive all kinds of stuff that are counter intuitive (which is the frontier)

Programmes like Woolfram Alpha will help, but also many coming ones that have astonishingly helpful user interfaces.

If you're a mathematicians as well you might be...you solve it.

It will have to include a list of the known problems in QA and a list of ways to try solutions.






.Read ->Basic premise it cant be done and change to
Basic Premise it CAN be done.
Or fire your mathematician and get another one.

[Julia36]

I didn't see anything resembling an argument for you cause in your posts stopgam. Stream-of-consciousness daydreaming has its place but it does not remove the need for a critical assessment of the evidence. So far you haven't provided anything concrete to overcome the insurmountable problems related to QA. Also, infinite processing power (or even near-infinite) will never be available, so you'll need to live with far less than that.

List the insurmountable problems Patypus, for I truly dont see any.

I went thru QA and listed them at first and overcame each of them.

The only remaining issues are unknown areas fro me, which I cant comment on as they are unknown.


Infinity is no different fro any other thing you calculate with.

You can calculate infinities with coming quantum computers expected to be efficient by 2022, or using maths.


It;s always tough to oppose conventional beliefs, but the truth is undefeatable.

[platypus]

List the insurmountable problems Patypus, for I truly dont see any.

1. The universe might well be undeterministic at the quantum level -> game over
2. The initial value problem, which makes the computation underdetermined -> game over
3. Deterministic chaos -> game over
4. Size of computation problem -> What's the maximum size of a computer you assume to be available? Jupiter-size superbrain? If that's not enough -> game over.

[Julia36]

List the insurmountable problems Patypus, for I truly dont see any.

1. The universe might well be undeterministic at the quantum level -> game over
2. The initial value problem, which makes the computation underdetermined -> game over
3. Deterministic chaos -> game over
4. Size of computation problem -> What's the maximum size of a computer you assume to be available? Jupiter-size superbrain? If that's not enough -> game over.

APOLOGIES for delay last 2 posts were banned for some reason??


1. No evidence for nil law in the quantum ---> game on.
2. Initial value is relative initial value: the universe is interactive and Archaeology demystifies complexities ---> game on.
3. Information is incapable of destruction (Leonard Susskind, wiki) QM is a statistics (Gerard 'tHooft. wiki). Deterministic Chaos is complexity and not unfathomability; moreover iot does not exist as an isolated sysetm but IVs are reconfigurable eg from probabilities and causation.: Science's whole attempt is to grasp the laws of physics. Your IV argument is an argument from complexity/size of calculation. ---> game on.

4. No known limits to size of calculations possible by coming systems like mathematics and man or machine -made physical systems which are in their infancy---> game on.


There is no initial position for anything, nor any initial mover. This snooker player's thoughts are as predictable as the balls that he will cause to hit each other.

Edited by stopgam, 18 January 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[Julia36]

Newton physics is the word we live in. His laws apply pretty much except where modified by Einstein and quantum theory?

We always live in a quantum world. Even the most powerful computer can't predict when a single radioactive atom will decay, thus this whole idea is based on the impossible.

Oh yes. And WHY cant we predict it?

[Julia36]

The Ghost of Truth Haunting Max Planck, who he and fellow conpsiriators has knifed to Death in the 20's

[DAMABO]

I must agree with stopgam that physical laws cannot be indeterminate, that certain things somehow avoid cause and effect relations. however, the butterfly effect is real and is a challenge to say the least. but to say that just because we can't find a rule that it is random, is not a way of doing constructive science. Let's say we haven't found out how a particular disease works. If we can't find a rule, does that mean the diseases occur randomly? No, it most likely means we (or our computers) are too dumb to figure out what is actually happening.
Whether or not we can actually go so far to 'resurrect' the dead and to what precision, that seems to be a question of computational capacity. Even if our computers attained the upper limit of what computational capacity will ever be, and they couldn't find out what laws are operating in the quantum world, that doesn't mean that there are no rules (indeterminism). it may just as well mean that the rule is highly complex (any rule sufficiently complex is indistinguishable from randomness).

[Julia36]

I must agree with stopgam that physical laws cannot be indeterminate, that certain things somehow avoid cause and effect relations. however, the butterfly effect is real and is a challenge to say the least. but to say that just because we can't find a rule that it is random, is not a way of doing constructive science. Let's say we haven't found out how a particular disease works. If we can't find a rule, does that mean the diseases occur randomly? No, it most likely means we (or our computers) are too dumb to figure out what is actually happening.
Whether or not we can actually go so far to 'resurrect' the dead and to what precision, that seems to be a question of computational capacity. Even if our computers attained the upper limit of what computational capacity will ever be, and they couldn't find out what laws are operating in the quantum world, that doesn't mean that there are no rules (indeterminism). it may just as well mean that the rule is highly complex (any rule sufficiently complex is indistinguishable from randomness).

Hi DAMABO,

I agree Causation is observable everywhere where we have pretty complete knowledge of a system.

Resurrection of the dead should be possible if 'being dead' isn't a special case of matter, and as biology reduces to inorganics, I cant see how 'dead' or 'living' makes any difference to quantum archaeology?

Symbolic maths reduces the size of calculations fast. Because resurrecting one man is similar to resurrecting another, the devil is in the details. They are not the main stuff and require less calculations.

Also calculation doesn't have to be X----> (HUGE EQUATION) ____> for Julius Ceasar,

but you work to recontruct Ceasar from something later eg Augustus,

Augustus was worked from Tiberius, Tiberius from Caligula, he from Marcus Aurelius etc until you arrive at The Queen.

this is the
quantumarchaeology grid


and you see a reference to piecing together the Deal Sea Scrolls there.

That's sort of 2 dimension archaeology, and reconstructing faces 3 dimensional archaeology.
But 4 dimension archaeology is coming, because 4D grids already exist with trillions of moving variables.


Richard III's skeleton has been dug up and there will be a pres release with facial reconstruction any moment:

[Julia36]

Gerard tHooft Nobel Prize physics 1999 has stated loosely he believes Causation underpins Nature

in Notes near bottom of page

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

Here he is in an old interview:

http://www.nobelpriz...ndex.php?id=455

Afraid I dont agree with his idea that to understand something massive you need a massive computer, but its up to information inflationists and symbol jugglers like us to convince others, as the tricks maths can do isn't getting through!

Still he comes after Einstein and his home page on learning physics is great.

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

All this ALL of it follows from FJ Tipler. He's a giant and an evidence is he's simplified complex areas.

Edited by stopgam, 20 January 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[Julia36]

BTW That interview with tHooft was 14 years ago. In it he predicted the Higgs would be found.

To clarify why you dont need proportionately bigger computers to calculate proportionately bigger things, consider some sea weed a meter square.

An equation can fit into your computer to describe it.

To describe sea weed 100 meters square ONLY means typing

original equation
X 100
this is just one more entry and doesn't require a massive computer.

as a rule:

HIGHER MATHS = Less Computing power needed and


or mathematics is inversely proportional to the amount of computing power you need.

This is because you are doing repeats and the attempts to find laws of science are attempts to find common descriptions of phenomena.

Those laws are inflatable by symbolic expression and groups of laws by hierarchy of expressions:

Quantum Archaeology uses many tricks like this to make mass complexity as vast calculation doable!

Edited by stopgam, 20 January 2013 - 09:55 PM.

[platypus]

I must agree with stopgam that physical laws cannot be indeterminate, that certain things somehow avoid cause and effect relations. however, the butterfly effect is real and is a challenge to say the least. but to say that just because we can't find a rule that it is random, is not a way of doing constructive science. Let's say we haven't found out how a particular disease works. If we can't find a rule, does that mean the diseases occur randomly? No, it most likely means we (or our computers) are too dumb to figure out what is actually happening.

Quantum mechanics is not "indeterminate", but its in-built randomness is limited and clearly defined. I see no reason why the universe could not contain fundamentally unpredictable elements. QM works.

3. Information is incapable of destruction[...]

How are you going to catch the information that left the planet and is receding at the speed of light?

Gerard tHooft Nobel Prize physics 1999 has stated loosely he believes Causation underpins Nature

He's entitled to that belief. Other physicists believe otherwise. It's entirely possible that nature contains indeterministic parts, until proven otherwise.

[platypus]

HIGHER MATHS = Less Computing power needed and

There are no guarantees at all that such mathematical shortcuts exist. This is currently just wishful thinking with no scientific basis.

[Mority]

Playtypus has it right. Nothing to add.

[DAMABO]

the world can and will always contain many unpredictable parts, since predictions are dependent on the imperfect entity that is predicting. That does not mean that 'randomness' (= the absense of rules, and yes the absense of causation) exists on some level of existence. so platypus, do you mean that it is possible that there are unpredictable parts, or do you mean that there might be parts of existence that are not determined by causal rules?

He's entitled to that belief. Other physicists believe otherwise. It's entirely possible that nature contains indeterministic parts, until proven otherwise.

Tough challenge to try to prove nature does not contain indeterministic parts - though, given of what we know of the world, that the huge majority of things seems driven by cause and effect, and, importantly, the fact that we don't have full information about our worlds - given this, it seems much more likely that nature does not contain indeterministic parts.
It is almost somewhat like the God-argument. If we don't find a underlying principle reason why something happened, we point to some powerful entity. The God-of-the-gaps may be similar to what is happening in science: because we don't find an underlying principle, we say something is random. Imagine that we did this for all of science! Inferring randomness, as the god-argument, is the absolute last thing science should consider.

Edited by DAMABO, 21 January 2013 - 10:39 PM.

[DAMABO]

Hi DAMABO,

I agree Causation is observable everywhere where we have pretty complete knowledge of a system.

Resurrection of the dead should be possible if 'being dead' isn't a special case of matter, and as biology reduces to inorganics, I cant see how 'dead' or 'living' makes any difference to quantum archaeology?

I didn't imply that 'living' makes any difference - I acknowledge that biology reduces to inorganics. As I said, the only thing that limits us from doing this at present is computational power. and most likely other technological difficulties. Which technological challenges do you think we still have to face?

[Julia36]

>>>>I didn't imply that 'living' makes any difference - I acknowledge that biology reduces to inorganics. As I said, the only thing that limits us from doing this at present is computational power. and most likely other technological difficulties. Which technological challenges do you think we still have to face?

Sorry I didn't mean to communicate tat you HAD said that. (divided by a common language problem: ).

The quickest reply is that we accelerate A.I. building ie sufficient intelligence amplification.

Men are still doing long hand invention and lab testing, but stripping more complex 'human tasks' into expert systems (IMO ALL of them are) should mean they seriously accelerate.

Longer terms Verner Vonge and Ray Kurzweil have talked of Superintelligence (or equivalent terms) being here by 2030 and 2045 respectively, using trending.

I would put that at 2027 from my gauge of incremental progresses.

If stand alone Superintelligence is constructed - and forms of it are known to be in development, then it would happen very fast ie in days or a couple of weeks at most IMO

I'm trying to do this long-hand for fun.

Here tech challenges have to run hand-in-hand with the maths challenges Technology and maths are not different...technology IS machinery.

Cant separate them as Better maths = less computing power needed.

Error efficient Quantum computers are due in 2022 (ibm).

It'd be great top have a shot at attempting it right now, but it would be a brave college that let mavericks work on it.





Maths and computing can be as model driven as software has been.

What do you think?

[Julia36]

HIGHER MATHS = Less Computing power needed and

There are no guarantees at all that such mathematical shortcuts exist. This is currently just wishful thinking with no scientific basis.

You've gotta be joking...

That's what maths is!

That's EVERYTHING that it is!

Maths IS shortcuts.

The fastest way to find them right now is heuristically using supercomputers and a monkey could build one of those.

Men are going to be obsolete shortly.

[platypus]

HIGHER MATHS = Less Computing power needed and

There are no guarantees at all that such mathematical shortcuts exist. This is currently just wishful thinking with no scientific basis.

You've gotta be joking...

That's what maths is!

That's EVERYTHING that it is!

Maths IS shortcuts.

In my opinion Math is about abstract structures, and not all structures are possible. You seem to think that "math" or "computing" can do whatever you can imagine to happen.

[Julia36]

HIGHER MATHS = Less Computing power needed and

There are no guarantees at all that such mathematical shortcuts exist. This is currently just wishful thinking with no scientific basis.

You've gotta be joking...

That's what maths is!

That's EVERYTHING that it is!

Maths IS shortcuts.

In my opinion Math is about abstract structures, and not all structures are possible. You seem to think that "math" or "computing" can do whatever you can imagine to happen.

I dont see why philosopher & poets should have to answer stuff outside out field which can only make us look as ridiculous as Einstein commenting on Politics.
.


I agree one of looking at Maths is as abstract structures. In this model, you are making symbolic representations of the 'real' world.

You will also I guess deduce from them by rules of maths to other descriptions, and you state not all structures are possible.

But that is not so.

What can be conceived and described can happen (Wittgenstein)

and Keats:

'I believe in nothing but the Truth of the imagination' - which is writ on his bedroom wall still.


we're not trying to invent new structures, but to archaeologize which ones were, deducing by the laws of science.

This comes down to maths and computing

Resurrections are not different between reassembling a potsherd and a living human being.

Neither exited in isolation from their environment but were part of it linked by knowable or discoverable laws.

see for interest:


Have they found Richard III? Archaeologists searching for 'tyrant king' under Leicester car park find skeleton with a curved spine and metal ARROW in its back

• Teeth and femur from the skeleton, which was buried without a coffin, set to undergo DNA testing at an undisclosed laboratory
• Barbed iron arrowhead was found between vertebrae of the skeleton’s upper back
• Also has spinal abnormalities and an individual form of spinal curvature, consistent with accounts of Richard III

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2IiHOrB1n




The dead will rise. It;s inevitable as we will make models of our pasts to the utmost of our science, and the urge to resurrect pervades our civilizations as a foundation principle.

Archaeology already exists and is getting better and better.

Autopsy is the opposite to quantum archaeology in a sense:






I will aim to address DAMABO's useful question shortly on what technological challenges we need to overcome. Cryonics and QA certainly overlap and help one another. I am thinking about it and haven't distilled a sufficient answer yet.

but generally they are about reassembly of people and not about the statistics and theory nor of the
quantumarchaeology grid

which IMO is constructable RIGHT NOW!

Edited by stopgam, 22 January 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[platypus]

I dont see why philosopher & poets should have to answer stuff outside out field which can only make us look as ridiculous as Einstein commenting on Politics.

Right, then why are you talking about Quantum Archeology which is, after all, a topic to be addressed by scientists, mathematicians and technologists? As a philosopher it should be enough for you to state that QA might be possible...

Edited by platypus, 22 January 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Julia36]

I dont see why philosopher & poets should have to answer stuff outside out field which can only make us look as ridiculous as Einstein commenting on Politics.

Right, then why are you talking about Quantum Archeology which is, after all, a topic to be addressed by scientists, mathematicians and technologists? As a philosopher it should be enough for you to state that QA might be possible...

Thanks Platypus. I agree it should be.
maybe there are 2 ways of outing an idea:

1. via the specialist/peer review

2. Crowd sourcing!

I experience that the common man has common sense (Descartes) and QA has to be presented to both him and the science community.

How does an independent philosopher do that?
Compromise...speaking some of the language of science.

I think Quantum Archaeology is such a profound idea it needs to be broadcast immediately, especially because it needs to be tested in rigorous sciences. It is hardly in the first of 3 stages an idea evolves thru:

1. It is absurd, lunatic and dismissed.
2. It is blasphemy against the prevailing method ie against science
3. It was known all along to be true.


While it there is arguably a recognized scientific method, there is no such method for philosophy which includes every study, including theology.

It can look like transhumanism coming of age as Technological Civilization has a way of belief in after life - thru it's major system (Science and Technology).

[Julia36]

Hi DAMABO,

Which technological challenges do you think we still have to face?

We need to master numbers via machines. That must be using intelligence amplification: so weak A.I.

Of course if Superintelligence is built that would do it.


Longhand:


The answer cannot come from within one discipline but the solution sue whatever it needs from human techniques to create a solution (model driven solution).

Initially I thought efficient quantum computers would be enough.
For physical reconstruction, nanobots at minimum, and probably quantum robots (Benioff 1982).

But there must be MANY ways to crack this.

Cryonics and QA are rivers to the same sea.

I dont know anyone in cryonics who expects scanning technology good enough to record frozen suspendees by 2022, but I do because I watch trends.

Simulation technology is dependent on quite a lot of sciences, not least supercomputers which history show us will look crude after a couple of step changes.

I'd expect by 2027 what replaces the mobile phone you carry to be able to simulate earth (which includes men of course) down to quantum events.

However I'll still get frozen if I can/need to!

Technology is DEMONSTRABLY on a double exponential:




Red line =double exponential curve. Blue line single exponential curve)..Note knee of the curve rapid take off.

quantum computers will arrive reaching the error minimum 2022 (ibm)

post human ai's will achieve self-modifying @ speed about 2027 (London A.I. Club; / Oxford IEET)


)

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 01:02 AM.

[Julia36]

the world can and will always contain many unpredictable parts, since predictions are dependent on the imperfect entity that is predicting. That does not mean that 'randomness' (= the absense of rules, and yes the absense of causation) exists on some level of existence. so platypus, do you mean that it is possible that there are unpredictable parts, or do you mean that there might be parts of existence that are not determined by causal rules?

He's entitled to that belief. Other physicists believe otherwise. It's entirely possible that nature contains indeterministic parts, until proven otherwise.

Tough challenge to try to prove nature does not contain indeterministic parts - though, given of what we know of the world, that the huge majority of things seems driven by cause and effect, and, importantly, the fact that we don't have full information about our worlds - given this, it seems much more likely that nature does not contain indeterministic parts.


It is almost somewhat like the God-argument. If we don't find a underlying principle reason why something happened, we point to some powerful entity. The God-of-the-gaps may be similar to what is happening in science: because we don't find an underlying principle, we say something is random. Imagine that we did this for all of science! Inferring randomness, as the god-argument, is the absolute last thing science should consider.

Agreed. You cant prove a negative nor are you required to in argument..


What matters now is that the survival technology gets here ahead of catastrophes like Global warming, runaway nanomachines, wipe-ot pathpgens, cosmic risks like meteorite impacts, super volcanoes, earth spontaneous orbit shift,

and unforeseen ones!

Some of us have lobbied for gvmts to race to build containable Superintelligence and assuage this, but to little avail.

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 01:16 AM.

[platypus]

In mathematics one can prove things with certainty, for example that underdetermined problems usually have an infinite number of solutions. No future mathematical developments will circumvent this logical fact.

By the way, if you could do QA it would also mean that predicting the future would be child's play. Are you sure this would not lead to nasty paradoxes when people will be informed beforehand what they will be experiencing in the future, which will prompt them to change their future behavior?

[platypus]

I'd expect by 2027 what replaces the mobile phone you carry to be able to simulate earth (which includes men of course) down to quantum events.

[Julia36]

In mathematics one can prove things with certainty

Yes but maths is a model, and the model is not reality. To rely on a mathematical certainty is to believe maths is perfection and omnipresent etc...It may be...but that is unknowable. Few philosophers would agree maths is certainty - although you correctly qualify it as 'in mathematics'.

I'm not sure most eminent physics I know of understand what maths can do. It has facility beyond imagination to shortcut solutions and tease out revelations which are testably true in physics.

for example that underdetermined problems usually have an infinite number of solutions. No future mathematical developments will circumvent this logical fact.

I suggest maths is evolving, relatively in its infancy, and hasn't scratched the surface of number manipulation. That last dictum of yours is refuted by the fact that sufficient prediction is impossible (tHooft)but sufficent retrodiction /archaeology may well be for scientific resurrection. .

By the way, if you could do QA it would also mean that predicting the future would be child's play.

This is trickier. I personally dont 'believe' we could ever predict the future, as events mushroom as we advance in 'time'. ie there are demonstrably increasingly FEWER events in the past than in the present and the future looks like there will be even more than the present therefore.

Are you sure this would not lead to nasty paradoxes when people will be informed beforehand what they will be experiencing in the future, which will prompt them to change their future behavior?

That is sometimes called the
Grandfather paradox

(eg in time travel) and has been refuted from Many Words Theory.
In MWT worlds split off or branch off from a near infinitely dense supertrunk at each event.
It may be is that events are already interactive with the past present and future (our human constructs which will no doubt be thrown away) ..the present changes the past, but the future changes the present and is doing so all the time.

Re paradoxes generally, they are
Contradictions


and to requote:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. Ayn Rand

There are NO paradoxes. There are NO contradictions. There is just insufficient present knowledge.

We need sufficient knowledge and sufficient technique to halt dying, reverse aging, restore health and raise the dead:

from those in cryonic suspension by scanning and microrobotic reconstruction inter alia,
and to raise the ancient dead by Quantum Archaeology.

Good luck on philosophy of maths. It is endless.

BTW there IS a maths for juggling with infinities (Cantorian maths) so infinity per se should not bother you unduly.

[Julia36]

I'd expect by 2027 what replaces the mobile phone you carry to be able to simulate earth (which includes men of course) down to quantum events.

platypus I mean in historical simulations, not present/future simulations which might run ahead of anything but presently undiscovered condensation maths.

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 01:42 PM.