<--- MORE INFORMATION BACK THRU THIS THREAD<------
>>>>>platypus, on 16 Jan 2015 - 3:40 PM, said:
You're forgetting the following mathematical-physical objections:
a) the problem of deterministic chaos and therefore sensitivity to initial values, which leads to the impossibility of measuring initial values accurately enough.<<<<<
If the info exists we'll find it with hyypercomputation. You've conceded it exists as it cant be destroyed.
The problem is finding it. There are several ways of doing this.
One is a world simulation, composed by working backward from the knowledge of the present.
"the Power Glove is a pretty damn sensible interface for Markey’s line of work. Watching him use the thing to speed through frames, it’s easy to forget you’re seeing a novelty controller for a two-decade-old gaming console. These shots might even remind you of something else, something familiar … By Yoshi’s tail, the Power Glove is a wearable! It’s a quirky old relative to the very gadgets we’re so obsessed with today!" more>>>
active drug substance is made by a living organism"
Rug company committing suicide
After years of debate, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is poised to allow the sale of biosimilars, cheaper versions of complex and expensive biological drugs used to treat conditions such as cancer and autoimmune diseases. On 7 January, an FDA advisory panel decided unanimously that a drug made by Sandoz, the generics arm of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, should be accepted as a replacement for filgrastim (Neupogen), an immune-boosting drug for people undergoing cancer treatment made by Amgen of Thousand Oaks, California."
Project Wing is a project that aims to deliver products across a city in a minute or two by using flying vehicles. At the time of the announcement on August 28, 2014, it had already been in development secretly at Google for about two years, with full-scale testing being carried out in Australia. The flying vehicles take off vertically, then rotate to a horizontal position for flying around. For delivery, it hovers and winches packages down to the ground. At the end of the tether, there’s a little bundle of electronics which detects that the package has hit the ground, detaches from the delivery, and is pulled back up into the body of the vehicle. Dropping the cargo or landing were found to be unfeasible, as users compromised the safety.[ wiki
most promising trailer of a.i. film since Blade Runner IMO
Quantum Archaeology argues every event is caused by laws of physics moving energy, and is absolutely predictable, with events in the past being easier (as the universe is expanding)
I know robots are coming because I've hung out in a leading android lab. In 2002/3 we could replicate human skin, conversation way ahead of anything online, and the only problems were mechanical, which coming A.I.'s would solve.
It must be obvious that you can only be safe with A.I.s by
1) upgrading yourself faster
or
2) being first to build safe Superintelligence
The odds against us surviving are enormous.
People all over the world are increasingly able to build off the shelf A.I.'s that double in capacity fast.
At first we thought there'd be a scramble for power. Now it pretty certain we'll be extinct in 10 or 20 years.
The story deals with the development of computers called Multivacs and their relationships with humanity through the courses of seven historic settings, beginning in 2061. In each of the first six scenes a different character presents the computer with the same question; namely, how the threat to human existence posed by the heat death of the universe can be averted. The question was: "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" This is equivalent to asking: "Can the workings of the second law of thermodynamics (used in the story as the increase of the entropy of the universe) be reversed?" Multivac's only response after much "thinking" is: "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way ...
—Opening line, The Last Question
The story jumps forward in time into later eras of human and scientific development. In each of these eras someone decides to ask the ultimate "last question" regarding the reversal and decrease of entropy. Each time, in each new era, Multivac's descendant is asked this question, and finds itself unable to solve the problem. Each time all it can answer is an (increasingly sophisticated, linguistically): "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
In the last scene, the god-like descendant of humanity (the unified mental process of over a trillion, trillion, trillion humans that have spread throughout the universe) watches the stars flicker out, one by one, as the matter and energy ends, with its space and time. Humanity asks AC, Multivac's ultimate descendant, which exists in hyperspace beyond the bounds of gravity or time, the entropy question one last time, before the last of humanity merges with AC and disappears. AC is still unable to answer, but continues to ponder the question even after space and time cease to exist. Eventually AC discovers the answer, but has nobody to report it to; the universe is already dead. It therefore decides to answer by demonstration. The story ends with AC's pronouncement,
Such objects reveal copious information about the people who lived in Norway as far back as the Stone Age. The material is emerging quickly so archaeologists have to work fast to gather them and preserve them as well as nature has done for so long.
Such artefacts from ancient mountain people are also being found in the Rocky Mountains, the Andes and the Alps.
No event happens by chance but is defined by laws.
The chance seems to be built into the laws. Your lack of imagination in this does not constrain the laws of the universe in any way. Your intuition about the matter does not prove anything as intuitipon is frequently wrong.
g) many systems of equations are underdetermined, which means they have an infinite number of possible solutions. nobody has shown that QA will not run into problems with underdetermination.
I dispute anything in the cosmos is underdetermioned with enough A.I.
What does AI got to do with it? If the system of equations is underdetermined no amount of "AI" is going to help. You seem to be making an error of category here and ascribe quasi magical/religious powers to advanced AI.
Please consider LHC-collider in CERN. Why do you suppose that they place their building-size detectors right beside the point where the collisions happen? After each collision the created particles fly away at close to the speed of light and if the particles are not detected, it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in the collisions. If LHC was in deep space the ctreated particles would keep flying outwards so they could not be recaptured or remeasured, ever, since there's no way to catch them. Here on Earth the created particles will hit something and are immediately lost in the noise created by trillions and trillions of particle-interactions happening in the neighborhood all the time. The end result is the same - unless you detect the particles right then and there with a massive detector, you will never be able to re-measure them and reconstruct what happened.
Perhaps you should sell QA by saying that people will be resurrected and then everything will be at least 50% better than before. Surely when peoples' histories can be made "better" in the simulation as it is only a matter of computatio)?
SpaceX has released dramatic footage of its booster rocket trying to land on a floating ocean barge after a launch—an unprecedented attempt that ended in a fiery explosion.
platypus I'm not going to reply to your same questions which I've done several times. You have dogmatic opposition to QA and it is against the rules of philosophy debate to repeat questions after being replied to umpteen times.
underderminism is a simple statement: of some things are impossible. But Quantum Archaeology is already happening, Underdeterminism is thus not applicable to QA. Cant you see that?
Are these YOUR ancestors? Faces of medieval Scots digitally reconstructed after their skulls were unearthed in a cemetery:
We couldn't know what the surface skin looked like it it reconstructed probabilistically by giving weightings from other things we know.
I dont think the brain reconstruction can be different because it's inside rather than outside the skull.
Further we're reconstructing things nearly a billion years old and test them for accuracy.
Secondly (again) information isn't lost in the way you argue but is capable of being reconstructed without chasing the actual particle that left a dead person's skull, by probabilistic grid construction.
The same principle is applied in jigsaws: you can see from other things what shape the missing piece is.
My position is that every can be calculated necessary for reconstruction and you dont need any bits of the original to do this. You can do it from the affects in the environment and similar systems.
My position is that every can be calculated necessary for reconstruction and you dont need any bits of the original to do this. You can do it from the affects in the environment and similar systems.
platypus I'm not going to reply to your same questions which I've done several times. You have dogmatic opposition to QA and it is against the rules of philosophy debate to repeat questions after being replied to umpteen times.
My opposition is not dogmatic but is based on _arguments_. You, however, seem to have decided that QA must work no matter what, even though you cannot refute any of the criticism. Isn't that religious thinking from you part?
My position is that every can be calculated necessary for reconstruction and you dont need any bits of the original to do this. You can do it from the affects in the environment and similar systems.
What do you base your position on?
Thought. I hold that an adequate thought machine would need almost no experimental physics.
platypus I'm not going to reply to your same questions which I've done several times. You have dogmatic opposition to QA and it is against the rules of philosophy debate to repeat questions after being replied to umpteen times.
My opposition is not dogmatic but is based on _arguments_. You, however, seem to have decided that QA must work no matter what, even though you cannot refute any of the criticism. Isn't that religious thinking from you part?
No no. repeating the same objection when your argument has been refuted is exactly dogma.
I wont debate religion and have overstepped my rebuttal which I've withdrawn.
Yup I've decided it must work because it;s already working.
What do you make of reconstructions up to a billion years we've done?
In a study published early online on Sunday, Jan. 8, in Nature, a team of scientists from the University of Chicago and the University of Oregon demonstrate how just a few small, high-probability mutations increased the complexity of a molecular machine more than 800 million years ago. By biochemically resurrecting ancient genes and testing their functions in modern organisms, researchers showed that a new component was incorporated into the machine due to selective losses of function, rather than the sudden appearance of new capabilities.
“Our strategy was to use ‘molecular time travel’ to reconstruct and experimentally characterize all the proteins in this molecular machine just before and after it increased in complexity,” said the study’s senior author Joe Thornton, professor of human genetics and evolution & ecology at the University of Chicago, professor of biology at the University of Oregon, and an Early Career Scientist of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
“By reconstructing the machine’s components as they existed in the deep past,” Thornton said, “we were able to establish exactly how each protein’s function changed over time and identify the specific genetic mutations that caused the machine to become more elaborate.”
Engineering the molecular machine
The study — a collaboration of Thornton's molecular evolution laboratory with the biochemistry research group of the University of Oregon’s Tom Stevens, professor of chemistry and member of the Institute of Molecular Biology — focused on a molecular complex called the V-ATPase proton pump, which helps maintain the proper acidity of compartments within the cell.
One of the pump’s major components is a ring that transports hydrogen ions across membranes. In most species, the ring is made up of a total of six copies of two different proteins, but in fungi a third type of protein has been incorporated into the complex.
To understand how the ring increased in complexity, Thornton and his colleagues “resurrected” the ancestral versions of the ring proteins just before and just after the third subunit was incorporated. To do this, the researchers used a large cluster of computers to analyze the gene sequences of 139 modern-day ring proteins, tracing evolution backwards through time along the Tree of Life to identify the most likely ancestral sequences. They then used biochemical methods to synthesize those ancient genes and express them in modern yeast cells.
Thornton’s research group has helped to pioneer this molecular time-travel approach for single genes; this is the first time it has been applied to all the components in a molecular machine.
The group found that the third component of the ring in fungi originated when a gene coding for one of the subunits of the older two-protein ring was duplicated, and the daughter genes then diverged on their own evolutionary paths.
The pre-duplication ancestor turned out to be more versatile than either of its descendants: expressing the ancestral gene rescued modern yeast that otherwise failed to grow because either or both of the descendant ring protein genes had been deleted. In contrast, each resurrected gene from after the duplication could only compensate for the loss of a single ring protein gene.
The researchers concluded that the functions of the ancestral protein were partitioned among the duplicate copies, and the increase in complexity was due to complementary loss of ancestral functions rather than gaining new ones.
By cleverly engineering a set of ancestral proteins fused to each other in specific orientations, the group showed that the duplicated proteins lost their capacity to interact with some of the other ring proteins. Whereas the pre-duplication ancestor could occupy five of the six possible positions within the ring, each duplicate gene lost the capacity to fill some of the slots occupied by the other, so both became obligate components for the complex to assemble and function.
“It’s counterintuitive but simple: complexity increased because protein functions were lost, not gained,” Thornton said. “Just as in society, complexity increases when individuals and institutions forget how to be generalists and come to depend on specialists with increasingly narrow capacities.”
Studying mutations in organisms
The research team’s last goal was to identify the specific genetic mutations that caused the post-duplication descendants to functionally degenerate. By reintroducing historical mutations that occurred after the duplication into the ancestral protein, they found that it took only a single mutation from each of the two lineages to destroy the same specific functions and trigger the requirement for a three-protein ring.
“The mechanisms for this increase in complexity are incredibly simple, common occurrences,” Thornton said. “Gene duplications happen frequently in cells, and it’s easy for errors in copying to DNA to knock out a protein’s ability to interact with certain partners. It’s not as if evolution needed to happen upon some special combination of 100 mutations that created some complicated new function.”
Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today. Such a mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity," the claim that molecular machines are too complicated to have formed stepwise through evolution.
“I expect that when more studies like this are done, a similar dynamic will be observed for the evolution of many molecular complexes,” Thornton said.
“These really aren’t like precision-engineered machines at all,” he added. “They’re groups of molecules that happen to stick to each other, cobbled together during evolution by tinkering, degradation, and good luck, and preserved because they helped our ancestors to survive.”
The paper, “Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine,” appears in the Jan. 18, 2012, issue of Nature. The work was a collaboration of Thornton’s molecular evolution lab with the research group of Tom Stevens, a yeast geneticist at the University of Oregon. Other authors include Gregory C. Finnigan and Victor Hanson-Smith, of the University of Oregon.
You have not "refuted" anything, your method of "rebuttal" is claiming that some *buzzword* will solve the issue. That does not qualify as analysis or rebuttal anywhere in the world!
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
This topic is locked
