Computing a theory of everything
- Thread starter mike123
- Start date
Mr. Wolfram should open the tech as open source. There are many people who will know what to do with this.
Good Post!!
digital systems are not the same as the real world. not sure why these AI / algorithm gurus can't ever understand that
computation is a model, not the real thing.
Weather modeling comes closer than not.
an intricate model is just that. if you don't understand the difference between a model and the real world, you're missing the point of building a model.
this wolfram guy appears to not understand that his dodecahedrons etc. are not in fact universes but computational models. he's basically an extremely intelligent idiot.
I am NOT a fan of Wolram as he does not give his assistants credit for things they discover.....
But he was just using it to illustrate how simple rules can do exotic things.
Architects and engineers build models of the real thing every day. 
Intelligent idiot ... indeed. 
even the model is incomplete and never will be.digital systems are not the same as the real world. Not sure why these ai / algorithm gurus can't ever understand that
Computation is a model, not the real thing.
You're missing the point Malaki is trying to make. If you truly understand the relationship between science/physics and mathematics you'll get it. Read this book...http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From?wasRedirected=true
NOT This
Those^
Watching the video I too was underwhelmed but the question was never recreating a working model for the universe but it was showing how the intelligence of a computer could one day rival that of a person (such as a Newton or Einstein) and devise a theory of everything
Recently it was said the most powerful computer in the world was as intelligent as a Honey Bee iirc
Seems pretty obv to me ... mike123 good looks on the Douglass Adams link Ia queued it ... I don't know if you are familiar with his book and the Fiction "Supercomputer" with the answer 42 ... if so ... great tie in and very well played
i'll check out that book to sean
NOT This
Those^
Watching the video I too was underwhelmed but the question was never recreating a working model for the universe but it was showing how the intelligence of a computer could one day rival that of a person (such as a Newton or Einstein) and devise a theory of everything
Recently it was said the most powerful computer in the world was as intelligent as a Honey Bee iirc
Seems pretty obv to me ... mike123 good looks on the Douglass Adams link Ia queued it ... I don't know if you are familiar with his book and the Fiction "Supercomputer" with the answer 42 ... if so ... great tie in and very well played
As usual gentlemen you post more stuff that intriges me...good stuff will listen to as much of it as i can.
Trust you wont be disappointed. Here's the basic gist. Mathematics only models dynamics. Change. That's essentially what an equation is. A place holder for constants and variables which you can tweak around to make useful predictions of what occurs in nature. Mathematics arguments physics/science (which only qualifies natural phenomena) by quantifying them within the formal numerical system that we humans created. Mathematical equations/models DO NOT describe physical objects. Anyone that disagrees should write up the equation for a bowl of oatmeal and i'll concede.
The problem with computing natural systems---with the ultimate goal of reverse engineering--is that there's just way too much context and and astronomical amount of variables to consider. Computers may provide a whole lot of algorithmic computational power but fail woefully when it comes to incorporating context. The reason is because computers only operate recursively (Turing Machine). To write a computer program that describes the functioning of a human cell is literally impossible. The genome isn't just some encoded information that can be decoded and used to construct a living system. The same goes for constructing a T.O.E.
digital systems are not the same as the real world. not sure why these AI / algorithm gurus can't ever understand that
computation is a model, not the real thing.
i had to think about it for alittle while but i get what yall are tryin to say
Our prespective is just a small slice of the pie and what ever model we create is more then likely just gonna recreate the universe from our prespective and not the whole universe
gonna have to check that book also
i think he covers some of that at around 3:30
mike123 good looks on the Douglass Adams link Ia queued it ... I don't know if you are familiar with his book and the Fiction "Supercomputer" with the answer 42 ... if so ... great tie in and very well played
wasnt sure if anybody would notice
maybe it really is all as simple as how many steps does a man have to take
Trust its already in my cart will be here tuesday! To the above in bold i'm not sure i quite get your meaning...i'll have to think on that one.
That too, but most importantly what i'm saying is that we first have to understand emergence and complexity. Computers and math which are limited in their own respects might assist us in understanding but can not do it on their own.
It's like trying to figure out how water freezes by studying single water molecules. The term "ice" is meaningless on the scale of individual H2O molecules. It only 'emerges' as a result of a vast number of H2O molecules collectively interacting with each other AND the environment through processes like H-bonding and nucleation as they organized into crystals.
Here's another example. I once worked on a project where I was trying to synthesize an extremely hydophillic (water loving) polymer by modifying a very short hydrophobic (water hating) polymer with extremely hydrophilic side groups. On paper and in theory the amount of hydrophilic groups I attached would make the overall molecule water soluble. I even modeled the dynamics with a computer. So I make the molecule, purify it, then put a lil bit of it in a whole lot of water. It was like putting oil in water. See, my intuition as well as the computer programs feed-back was limited and insufficient in understanding the totality of interactions and behavior of the polymer in water. And this was for a relatively simple system... a polymer of maybe a few hundred monomers. Now try and imagine a system with a 100 trillion parts..
Are you trying to say that on paper and in our computer programs their will or most likely will be variables that we cannot account for in the real world? and when/if we do account for those ones..new ones will always popup?
many different seemingly simple variables end up producing unintended consequences
I dont think we'll ever build computers that could completely simulate the universe simple because i dont think we can reproduce or predict how any and every variable within the universe would interact with any other. We're still gonna have to go out there an make the observations and do the experiments. But we should be able to build something like a virtual environment that could be used for entertainment and try out hypothesis that may be too difficult to test in the real world
many different seemingly simple variables end up producing unintended consequences
I dont think we'll ever build computers that could completely simulate the universe simple because i dont think we can reproduce or predict how any and every variable within the universe would interact with any other. We're still gonna have to go out there an make the observations and do the experiments. But we should be able to build something like a virtual environment that could be used for entertainment and try out hypothesis that may be too difficult to test in the real world
if i get your complete meaning in correlation with what sean typed then i would think your virtual environment would fail also for the same reasoning...we cannot predict/simulate/program.....all the components of that environment in proper function to the real one.
wasnt sure if anybody would notice
maybe it really is all as simple as how many steps does a man have to take
idk what it is but I just had to block it out cause I would go crazy trying to figure it out ... as I said well played
some good vids up in here
I'm saying that there's a lot of stuff we take for granted. Plus there's a heck of a lot of stuff in complexity theory that we need to understand before we start making bold claims. For example, solving the P = NP problem.
I agree. Like Gerald Edelman's "Brain Based Device" for starters.many different seemingly simple variables end up producing unintended consequences
I dont think we'll ever build computers that could completely simulate the universe simple because i dont think we can reproduce or predict how any and every variable within the universe would interact with any other. We're still gonna have to go out there an make the observations and do the experiments. But we should be able to build something like a virtual environment that could be used for entertainment and try out hypothesis that may be too difficult to test in the real world
If you read the comments on this guy's theory, it is NOT about paradox of choice, however poetic that may be. It is the absence of a good filter to filter out bad options. You get a good filter, you get exactly what you want (natural happiness).
Ray Kurzweil confidently states that artificial intelligence will, in the not distant future, “master human intelligence.”
David Gelernter: “We won’t even be able to build super-intelligent zombies unless we approach the problem right.” This means admitting that a continuum of cognitive styles exists among humans.
Two of the sharpest minds in the computing engage in one of the oldest debates around: whether machines may someday achieve consciousness. (NB: Viewers may wish to brush up on the work of computer pioneer Alan Turing and philosopher John Searle in preparation for this video.)
Video link: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/422
David Gelernter: “We won’t even be able to build super-intelligent zombies unless we approach the problem right.” This means admitting that a continuum of cognitive styles exists among humans.
Two of the sharpest minds in the computing engage in one of the oldest debates around: whether machines may someday achieve consciousness. (NB: Viewers may wish to brush up on the work of computer pioneer Alan Turing and philosopher John Searle in preparation for this video.)
Video link: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/422
I'm pretty sure i don't agree with Kurzweil, Sean i'm curious to hear you opinion of the Watson computer by IBM... particularly on "if the algorithm is getting so good that it(computer) can start to understand(human grammer, syntax, etc) in reference to providing a "right answer"... what else is on the horizon?
don't know enough about IBM's Watson to comment. I'll have to learn more about it. But from what I've heard, syntax isn't the problem, it's computing semantics and metaphor that's the challenge.
not saying that the program/simulation wouldnt have blind spots, in the beginnin i can imagine tons but eventually based on some of the work these guys are doin it eventually it may be possible to create a simulation that alot of those unpredictable aspects that the universe
idk what it is but I just had to block it out cause I would go crazy trying to figure it out ... as I said well played
some good vids up in here
lol
a combo of trial an error on the part of the scientist and the program
Great topic. Thanks for starting the thread Mike.
Check this out.
bout to watch that vid now
been watchin alot of Kurzweil's stuff last few days, gonna have to check this out too
