• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

stopgam's thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2214 replies to this topic

#31 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:27 PM

Companies are advancing assuming Quantum Archaeology is feasible.

eg

http://www.technolog...immortality.htm

Russia has assumed it possible and has digital imaging (cited in the paper above or google QA)
)and derived it separately.

#32 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:41 PM

i think it foolish (especially of me) to debate the quantum theory when no-one understand it.

It;s success does not make me believe it is a complete explanation .many laws eg Newtonian gravity...have been successsful until overturned.
Law = prediction = causality. No way round that I see. replying they're not causal but probabilistic is playing with words since probability itself is necessarily causal.

The other issue paltypus, as we both seem to feel strongly about quantum mechanics is your assertion that you cant deal with infinite numbers/calculations (which is the same think if you think about it.

Simply not true. We use symbols. eg 0-0 for infinity.

but the only argument really is

WE ARE ALREADY RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST


before- as found in a bog:
Posted Image

Posted Image

After facial reconstruction: Of high status, Lindow Man was strangled in about 100CE a ceremony used by Roman occupiers on enemy leaders. We can faithfully recreate what he looked like but quantum archaeologists hope by 2030-45 we'll be able be able to bring him and his group back to life (Cheshire UK Before/after).



#33 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

i think it foolish (especially of me) to debate the quantum theory when no-one understand it.

It;s success does not make me believe it is a complete explanation .many laws eg Newtonian gravity...have been successsful until overturned.
Law = prediction = causality. No way round that I see. replying they're not causal but probabilistic is playing with words since probability itself is necessarily causal.

The other issue paltypus, as we both seem to feel strongly about quantum mechanics is your assertion that you cant deal with infinite numbers/calculations (which is the same think if you think about it.

Simply not true. We use symbols. eg 0-0 for infinity.

but the only argument really is

WE ARE ALREADY RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST


before- as found in a bog:
Posted Image

Posted Image

After facial reconstruction: Of high status, Lindow Man was strangled in about 100CE a ceremony used by Roman occupiers on enemy leaders. We can faithfully recreate what he looked like but quantum archaeologists hope by 2030-45 we'll be able be able to bring him and his group back to life (Cheshire UK Before/after).



for platypus:

>>>It's more bonkers that you've decided that the most successful theory of the microscopic world is "wrong" based on a philosophical hunch that "the world cannot have indeterministic parts". Who are you to dictate how the universe can or cannot work?<<<

I have a good instinctive grasp of science. It is a successful theory relative to the knowledge we have of it.

I was goaded into accepting the universe spontanaously sprng into being 20 years ago to my etrenal shame...I knew it was barking but bowed to more knowdlege. M Theory showed the inioverse didn't pop into being, and new theories will show quantum bits dont break causation not pop in and out of 'reality without precursors.



>>>> There's no way out of the problem that the "butterfly effect" causes in fully classical physics.<<<

There are MANY ways out of it by accepting that it exists (which I do) but it's only a so-callec chaos eeffect at an aggregate level. At a micro level it is cause anf ewffect. Sufficient computing can predict and retrodict every action in the human world.
I predict we'll get that calculation power at some stage.

>>>The computational requirements will easily exceed literally any increases in computing speed.<<<<

No they wont we'll use maths.

>>>>And since you cannot ever know the initial condition with infinite precision,<<<

Infinite precision is not possible for anything other than a closed system like school homework!

>>> a change in the 10000th digit in ONE of your initial variables will completely change the outcome of the calculation.<<<
Right and so it should.

the SIZE of calculation is horrific, but not for coming syetms eg super-recursive algorithms.






^^do you think the quantum world operates by laws?^^

>>>>Yes, and those laws seem to be fundamentally indeterministic at the microscopic level. These laws explain for example ALL of electromagnetics so they cannot be dismissed by philosophical ponderings. This shit works!<<<

This is a philosophy board BTW. electromagnetism is explained by photon movements. Good. EVERYTHING that can exist MUST be explainable in other things.

pray understand: you cannot have laws and indeterminancy.

THat would be contradiction.
Eiother Cuasation is worng...and we can PROOVE it;s right...or the EXPLANATION of quantum theory is wrong.

People thought the superposition collapses until Everet showed many worlds theiry which rstored part of teh quantum theory to utter cause and effect.

The other bits will be restored too.

Cause & Effect is everything science is and necessary hold for entangled particles which appear to travel faster than light in your theory!

#34 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

We're trying to understand quantum entanglement...no way anyone understand how it works yet!
You cant ditch Causality on the basis that you dont see it in some quantum experiments.

#35 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:24 PM

pray understand: you cannot have laws and indeterminancy.

That's a misunderstanding from your part. Sure you can have laws and indeterminacy at the same time. Quantum theory is a good example.
  • Ill informed x 1

#36 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

>>>That's a misunderstanding from your part. Sure you can have laws and indeterminacy at the same time. Quantum theory is a good example.<<<<

Do enlighten me.
Laws mean if X---> then Y.
Law is necessarily causal. Causality is necessarily lawful.

Indeterminacy means If X---> then anything at all. It cannot exist in nature and was used to describe outcomes whose parameters were too big to compute. It is not a true word and a synonym for chaos or the work of the devil.
I suspect you are a satanist. One of your high priests Max Planck who founded QT wrote:

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

Non determinism and spooky action at distance are attempts at religion in the discipline of science which NB >>is<< causality.




You cant quote QT as an example proving that QT exists!!! I've looked at QT for 20 yrs including private cramming for 15 with a good theoretical physicist so it's not likely I dont get surface ideas of it...however I may have a blind spot. (This is ad hominem)
Posted Image

Edited by stopgam, 16 December 2012 - 02:39 PM.

  • dislike x 1

#37 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:00 PM

Quantum mechanics has laws that have indeterminacy built-in them, as you surely know. But didn't you try to say that this was impossible? You've lost me.
  • Ill informed x 1

#38 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

https://en.wikipedia...on_tests_of_QED

The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electronanomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.
  • Ill informed x 1

#39 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:21 PM

Quantum mechanics has laws that have indeterminacy built-in them, as you surely know. But didn't you try to say that this was impossible? You've lost me.


I do understand that position. It was also held in discussion of tree will: that the human brain has a chaos chamber of non-predictability, since we couldn't predict thoughts.

But it was just complexity, and you can work up from a venus flytrap which you will see is determined.


The so called laws of indeterminancy on QT are wrong and confound Galileo's first maxim.

We cant observe what's going on there ..presumably new and complex, so we say it hasn't been caused at all , and is by nature unpredictable.

Alternately some theorize a new definition of laws...laws that cant be used to predict....although QT doesn't state this at all, but that can only have certain measures of prediction!

You are right that the quantum and meso worlds interfere and any chaos would show itself in out world.

Where is it then?

We know less that 1% of what is possible to know since the numbers of multiverses are believed infinite and thought to have different laws.

this is the area of philosophy, not just science.

Also the fact that we can make predictions for the quantum world means it is not random.

the idea quantum particles or waves or events >>>without cause<<< pop into being and disappear is religious.

Science is about law, number observation and measurement.

Einstein was great because he went slow.

It's probable of course that man has no near graps pof reality which is so dense it could never be known.

But saying something is indeterminable and then predicting it probabilistically P= a subset of Causality) is playing with words.

Posted Image

#40 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

So how is it possible that QED can compute the value of the fine-structure-constant correctly to within one part in hundred million? Do you want to argue that the theory is "wrong"?
  • Disagree x 1

#41 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

I dispute that where you can predict you can have non-determinism.


But this thread is about archaeology and what you can reconstruct.

You MUST conceed if there are laws in the quantum there is prediction in the quantum.

Where there are laws and prediction there is necessarily causality.

OR

Care to define what a law is and how it differs from Causation.

Posted Image

Edited by stopgam, 16 December 2012 - 06:12 PM.


#42 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

Ok
Posted Image
Let;s scrap this discussion, due to my ignorance in QT.

HOW small do you think we need to go to recontruct long dead people?

#43 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

So how is it possible that QED can compute the value of the fine-structure-constant correctly to within one part in hundred million? Do you want to argue that the theory is "wrong"?



What I want to argue is 2. that prediction = law=causality.
1. Reconstruction is possible to 5 nanometres of the hum
an brain that is significant for memory, and that with DNA reconfigurable and environment reconfigurable, local simulations to 5 nanometres are viable and therefore resurrection is viable.
I cant see how a theory that is not understandable can be debated usefully nor used to dismiss causality.

We cant model the quantum world but are on the edge of measuring and observing isolated quantum systems.

https://en.wikipedia...on_tests_of_QED

The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electronanomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.


Posted Image

"THE RYDBERG CONSTANT IS A CAUSAL LAW!!"

Edited by stopgam, 16 December 2012 - 06:22 PM.


#44 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

You MUST conceed if there are laws in the quantum there is prediction in the quantum.

Yes but within strict limits. Particles don't have strictly defined position and momentum at the same time. BTW this will ultimately thwart your attempts to attain infinite precision when defining the initial conditions of your model run. Therefore deterministic chaos will prevail and the simulations are doomed to fail.
  • Ill informed x 1

#45 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:05 PM

So how is it possible that QED can compute the value of the fine-structure-constant correctly to within one part in hundred million? Do you want to argue that the theory is "wrong"?


What I want to argue is 2. that prediction = law=causality.
1. Reconstruction is possible to 5 nanometres of the human brain that is significant for memory, and that with DNA reconfigurable and environment reconfigurable, local simulations to 5 nanometres are viable and therefore resurrection is viable.

Perhaps, but you cannot initialise that simulation properly so the whole issue is moot. There's no way you'll ever know what was in the field-of-view of Mozart during his lifetime, so you can never simulate his life.

I cant see how a theory that is not understandable can be debated usefully nor used to dismiss causality.

QED is based on QM and all the nondeterministic elements of QM. It produces corrects results at the level of 1 over 100 million at least. Why would a theory that is completely "wrong" be able to achieve such feats? Why don't you reassess the situation and realise that perhaps the world is fundamentally nondeterministic like QM says. This is the only rational approach, IMO.
  • Ill informed x 1

#46 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

>>You MUST concede if there are laws in the quantum there is prediction in the quantum.
**Yes but within strict limits. Particles don't have strictly defined position and momentum at the same time. BTW this will ultimately thwart your attempts to attain infinite precision when defining the initial conditions of your model run. Therefore deterministic chaos will prevail and the simulations are doomed to fail.


Within what limits?
I shall answer: within the limits of our maths and measuring technolgies. >>But these aren't constant.<<

I'm not sure you understand that I am NOT seeking INFINTE precision but precision down to 5 nanometres (for example)

I dont fundamentally accept the idea of chaos 9biblical term) for when things decay 9perjorative word..it means change) systems do so ABSOLUTELY by the laws of the universe (the laws of physics) and not 'randomly (no such thing: it refers to another scale size that is unmeasurable from the one you can deal with).

But I think I have separated the argument:

You believe in chaos.

I in complete law at every level.

you beleive the universe is an isolated system.
i in multiverse and many worlds.

However, you believe the past is buried, whilst I resurrect it every day as an archaeologist.

Your challenge then is that I may reconstruct a body or face but not a brain, which is absurd.

Man is not a holy relic outside physics, but has existed as reactions to his environment and DNA inevitably.

There are zillions of event points that can be point to any one individual in time to describe then resurrect anyone.
That is the basis of law trials, of forensics, of archaeology and of history.

Now we are about to get massive calculators doing near infinite sums in seconds.

Quantum theory is not against this but is facilitating it (Note I challenge its explanation not its predictive power)

this is an actual reconstruction
Posted Image

#47 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

Why do you keep saying I seek infinite precision?

I seek RELEVANT precision which for one human brain is as small as 5 nm.

Perhaps, but you cannot initialise that simulation properly so the whole issue is moot. There's no way you'll ever know what was in the field-of-view of Mozart during his lifetime, so you can never simulate his life.


THat is absolutely wrong. THere is a way/s.
You dont initialise the simulation linearly but by zillions of lines using ther laws of physics. from event nodes in ther past future and present to Mozrt.

The brain is not somethign mystical.

Why can you work out where the earth was in relation to the sun 5th dec 1791, but not what was in Mozart's brain?


the issue is size of calculation.

THat's why we need a

https://sites.google...rchaeologygrid/



In fact your sole argument is indeed size of calculation.

#48 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:34 PM

QED is based on QM and all the nondeterministic elements of QM. It produces corrects results at the level of 1 over 100 million at least. Why would a theory that is completely "wrong" be able to achieve such feats? Why don't you reassess the situation and realise that perhaps the world is fundamentally nondeterministic like QM says. This is the only rational approach, IMO.


If you think the whole world is indeterminate I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. They might not be a floor there.

It is clearly NOT indeterminate and i i challenge you to name ONE THING JUST ONE in the meso world we can get a handle on and live in that is not determined?

there are patterns in nature...short cuts...that's what maths is..but that doesn't mean that underlying structures are not causal.

Whenever that has been suggested it has ALWAYS fallen.

Posted Image

#49 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:45 PM

indeterminism is an old argument in philosophy. It's raken up when systems appear to behave randomly..almost always because they are too big to measure. That incorporates too complex which is the same as too big by unit complexity.

Einstein faced that in 1905 proving that gas in a tank was not random, although people refused to believe it and stuck to the idea it was indeterminate for ages.
Although I am arguing by analogy historically indeterminism crops up with (unknown) complexity to retreat into the shadows when the light comes on

wiki

Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of metaphysical libertarianism.


i am sure you are looking at a small system, some of which is known, some of which...for whatever reason is unknowable @ present.

THAT is your limits.

THere is a massive difference between unknown and non-causal.

Science has driven down a cul-de-sac. I'm glad quantum predictions work, because that means

when you do X you will get Y

That Sir is CAUSAL!

Posted Image

Edited by stopgam, 16 December 2012 - 08:39 PM.


#50 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:36 PM


>>You MUST concede if there are laws in the quantum there is prediction in the quantum.
**Yes but within strict limits. Particles don't have strictly defined position and momentum at the same time. BTW this will ultimately thwart your attempts to attain infinite precision when defining the initial conditions of your model run. Therefore deterministic chaos will prevail and the simulations are doomed to fail.


Within what limits?
I shall answer: within the limits of our maths and measuring technolgies. >>But these aren't constant.<<

In QM the limits are in the theory itself, not in measurements. I don't understand what is so disturbing about this.

I'm not sure you understand that I am NOT seeking INFINTE precision but precision down to 5 nanometres (for example)

And how will you create an exact replica of Mozart's brain at that level? That is and will always remain impossible. The needed information to do that has been destroyed (or it flew past us at the speed of light). Anything is NOT possible!

I dont fundamentally accept the idea of chaos 9biblical term) for when things decay 9perjorative word..it means change) systems do so ABSOLUTELY by the laws of the universe (the laws of physics) and not 'randomly (no such thing: it refers to another scale size that is unmeasurable from the one you can deal with).

That;s not a proper argument. The universe does not need to behave according to your metaphysical hunches

However, you believe the past is buried, whilst I resurrect it every day as an archaeologist.

Information about the past has been irrevocably lost - technology cannot help you there. Well, maybe a time-machine would.

Your challenge then is that I may reconstruct a body or face but not a brain, which is absurd.

How the hell would you "reconstruct" Mozart's brain? Exact replica at 5 nanometres? Hah.

There are zillions of event points that can be point to any one individual in time to describe then resurrect anyone.
That is the basis of law trials, of forensics, of archaeology and of history.

I call BS on that. Too much information has been lost.

In fact your sole argument is indeed size of calculation.


No, the main argument is the lack of information about the initial state of the simulated system. Then there's the issue of deterministic chaos that would derail your simulation after a short time due to small rounding errors etc. increasing over time. Then there's the QM issue, you cannot ignore the theory just because you don't like some of it's features.

Quantum theory is not against this but is facilitating it (Note I challenge its explanation not its predictive power)


That's metaphysics and not very productive. You could easily be wrong.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#51 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:00 AM

No, the main argument is the lack of information about the initial state of the simulated system.


the brain is not particular @ under 5 nanometres.

The present is MADE by the past.

NOT randomly, but by cause and effect aka the laws of science.

If you know those and know the present you can trace backwards.

the size of such trace calculations from the archaeolgical,record, the biological and geological record the cosmic record...hundreds of data bases including DNA records...synthesized would give exact readings.

I call BS on that. Too much information has been lost.


Information is data as events.
Are you saying in your universe events just disappear and ignore the laws of physics?

Many are hard to trace without vast calculators...that is why QA exists --->to find it.

The genius of the universe is that everything's linked up! There's nowhere to hide mate!

Posted Image

surely not. Events change by laws. In that sense the universe has reversibly.

I cite Sherlock Homes as proof:

"When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must the the case."

Posted Image

It produces corrects results at the level of 1 over 100 million at least. Why would a theory that is completely "wrong" be able to achieve such feats?


I couldn't allow an error factor of that magnitude in Quantum Archaeology.

Why do you think there are errors in QA? The whole point of it is making it error free.

I was tortured at Oxford in Z
(- the ultimate language!) where I learned to check a complete deep (high complexity) system so their were no errors at all in it.

Pain never lies.




Edited by stopgam, 17 December 2012 - 01:32 AM.


#52 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:22 AM

No, the main argument is the lack of information about the initial state of the simulated system.


the brain is not particular @ under 5 nanometres.

Yeah but how are you going to scan Mozart's brain again? How can you simulate what her mother chose to eat during pregnancy? It's mind-boggling that you think such personal choices can be "simulated" somehow.

The present is MADE by the past.

NOT randomly, but by cause and effect aka the laws of science.

If you know those and know the present you can trace backwards.

You can never know the present at sufficient accuracy. Deterministic chaos ensures that even the smallest errors multiply quickly. This will never work even in the classical world. Then there's the QM-issue that particles don't even possess exact position and velocity at the same time, preventing you from measuring the initial state properly.

the size of such trace calculations from the archaeolgical,record, the biological and geological record the cosmic record...hundreds of data bases including DNA records...synthesized would give exact readings.

Is the molecular structure of Mozart's brain 5 months after gestation in any of these records? LOL

I call BS on that. Too much information has been lost.


Information is data as events.
Are you saying in your universe events just disappear and ignore the laws of physics?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Information about past events is spreading out in the universe at the speed of light and without FTL travel we never be able to catch it, not even in theory.

It produces corrects results at the level of 1 over 100 million at least. Why would a theory that is completely "wrong" be able to achieve such feats?


I couldn't allow an error factor of that magnitude in Quantum Archaeology.

Why do you think there are errors in QA? The whole point of it is making it error free.

Then you need to know the initial state perfectly, which is impossible. So far you've tried to dismiss this issue with some vague handwaving but with no real arguments. Same goes for the other arguments, you have not managed to defend against them at all.
  • like x 1

#53 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

Yeah but how are you going to scan Mozart's brain again? How can you simulate what her mother chose to eat during pregnancy?


you construct it from calculation

You can never know the present at sufficient accuracy. Deterministic chaos ensures that even the smallest errors multiply quickly.


that is "The Size of Calculation's too big" arguemnt. No lnger holods with hypercomputation and super-recursive algorithms.

Is the molecular structure of Mozart's brain 5 months after gestation in any of these records? LOL


I am 100% sure You can calculate it from event points that have survived in the records. The universe is a causal syetms that is interactive. Evertthng affects everything else.

A buttfly flapping it's wings in New York affects you in Switzeland

THat must work backwards as well....that you and the butterfly are connecvted to each other each other by chains of reaction.

Those reactions are only possible by the laws of physics.

If you know the laws of physics and a very few starting points you can calculate every past event.

My last post was wiped!

what I'm saying. Information about past events is spreading out in the universe at the speed of light and without FTL travel we never be able to catch it, not even in theory.


There isn't just one path to an information event. Paths come describing it from the future from the past and adjacently in the present.

To obliterate any event there has ever been you would have to annihilate the entire multiverse.

nothing can disappear.

Try it.

Then you need to know the initial state perfectly, which is impossible.


THat's the whole point to Quantum Archaeology...you DOPNT need to knwo the initial state AT ALL.

You calculate from what you do know.

The present is built from the past causually.

It couldn't arrive by any other that ONE specific set of events.

We will calculate them

Anyhow you can take this up with Mozart's mother urself:


Posted Image

#54 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:03 PM

Yeah but how are you going to scan Mozart's brain again? How can you simulate what her mother chose to eat during pregnancy?


you construct it from calculation

That;s a ludicrous idea as you don't know the initial state well enough at all. The simulation needs to get Mozart's complete life experiences right including thoughts and dreams. If you think this will be possible, I have to question your rationality and even sanity.

You can never know the present at sufficient accuracy. Deterministic chaos ensures that even the smallest errors multiply quickly.


that is "The Size of Calculation's too big" arguemnt. No lnger holods with hypercomputation and super-recursive algorithms.

No it's not! It's the "you'll never know the initial state well enough", which is a completely different thing. Besides, there are both practical and theoretical limits on the size of the available computing power as well.

Is the molecular structure of Mozart's brain 5 months after gestation in any of these records? LOL


I am 100% sure You can calculate it from event points that have survived in the records. The universe is a causal syetms that is interactive. Evertthng affects everything else.

Sorry but that is complete BS.

If you know the laws of physics and a very few starting points you can calculate every past event.

Not at all. The situation is not well defined. There are infinite amount of possible histories that can be constructed from "a few starting points", and no way of deciding which histyory to choose from all those infinities.

what I'm saying. Information about past events is spreading out in the universe at the speed of light and without FTL travel we never be able to catch it, not even in theory.


There isn't just one path to an information event. Paths come describing it from the future from the past and adjacently in the present.

Nope. It disappears into the noise very rapidly, and that's irreversible in practice.

To obliterate any event there has ever been you would have to annihilate the entire multiverse.

nothing can disappear.

Even if that's the case it won't help & I've explained why.

Then you need to know the initial state perfectly, which is impossible.


THat's the whole point to Quantum Archaeology...you DOPNT need to knwo the initial state AT ALL.

Well, that is just bullshit. You need to be more critical of what you read.

#55 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:01 PM

For newbies


Quantum Archaeology For Children



Posted Image


An archaeologist looks at old things and tries to rebuild them back to new.



Quantum Archaeology is about how to get back all the dead people who have ever lived in the world.




Posted Image





Posted Image







People who died long ago will soon be resurrected by science when we get bigger computers.


Its based on what we know about
  • science,
  • maths,
  • computers, and
  • NEW machines.


Scientists think we can wake up the dead. Then make them young again. They are talking about how to do it. They are drawing ways to wake up all the dead people back to life.

One of these ways is by doing very BIG sums.




Posted Image




Then we'll use tiny robots to build the dead back to life again!

Posted Image



LAWS OF THE VERY SMALL

Posted Image


The world of the very small seems spooky to grown ups! We must work out all it's laws.


LOTS OF SUMS TO DO


There are lots of sums to do. Sums can also be done as small drawings.

You can draw sums on a grid as shapes.

Posted Image

There are more small drawings for Quantum Archaeology than all the stars in the sky!

So we need MASSIVE computers to do them!




Posted Image



Titan is the biggest computer in the world.


We hope be able to wake up the dead people even when they've been forgotten.

This is because computers are getting faster:

Posted Image


When grown-ups were your age they had to read everything in books and newspapers: it took them years to see all the facts they wanted.



Posted Image


Today we can see lots of facts.


Posted Image

Next year people will wear computers!


We are building better things, bigger things, and faster things.

We think computers could do all the sums for us.

It doesn't matter when this happens... because the dead dont mind waiting!

Quantum Archaeology is new, big and fun.

Quantum Archaeology has lots of toys in it.


THE GRID



First we'll build the quantum archaeology grid .
[center]Posted Image

Next we'll draw the dead people on it.
Then we'll do lots of cross- checking... to make sure we've got the right person!
Posted Image


When we build the grid, and cross-check all the laws -


We'll bring the dead people back to life with robots!

[center]Posted Image





Adult version: :
http://sites.google....tumarchaeology/

#56 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:09 AM

I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I do find it odd that some people are so certain that something will be "impossible" forever.

Statistically, it's probably been more wise to bet on something being possible in the future rather than impossible. Surely it must've seemed "impossible" to send a man to the moon 2,000 years ago.

To say that something will always be impossible pretty much means that this something is logically a contradiction, e.g. I could say that it will always be impossible that "A and not A" will ever be true and I might be right, but to say that it will always be impossible to live to be 10,000 years old is a bad bet.

All I've seen so far against quantum archaeology is that a) randomness is built into the laws of the universe (which we really don't know yet) and b) the size of the computation is too big.

The latter problem will solve itself with time, and the first one we will find out in time as well.

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

I tend to agree with stopgam here that infinite numbers are not necessarily a problem; we've been using pi to calculate things for ages, and yet pi as a number is infinite.
  • like x 1

#57 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

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

I do. Due to deterministic chaos one needs to know the initial positions and velocities of _all_ particles in the simulation to an infinite precision. And even if there was a limit and infinite precision is not needed, how are you going to have all this information of all these particles? Remember that if you do infinitesimal errors, the simulation will go astray. This is an argument about the initial state - not the size of the computation.

We can also get philosophic about the size of the computation. What if the computer that is needed to simulate the whole universe does not fit in that universe?

Anything is NOT possible and laws of physics necessarily set boundaries that cannot be surpassed. We might not know the right laws yet but don't count on some future theory making something possible in the far future, as it might never happen.

Edited by platypus, 18 December 2012 - 11:36 AM.

  • like x 1

#58 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

It might not indeed, but I'm not 100% that it won't, as some people seem to be :)

As for the initial state, what if you had only the end state of 5 particles and wanted to know their initial state? Then you could do a simulation where you start with, say, 1000 different potential initial states (discarding some states which you know are impossible), apply the laws of physics, and see which one of these simulations takes you to the end state. The one that gives the correct end state is the one with the the correct initial state.

This doesn't seem impossible to me at all, and the fact that the universe has much more particles than five seems like a size-related problem, not a logical problem.

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.

This brings to mind the hypothesis that the universe is most likely a simulation, since if it is possible to simulate a universe inside the real universe, then much more simulations must exist than real universes, which means that it's more probable for a given human to exist inside a simulation rather than the real universe. Is there a refutation for this idea, other than simulations being too complex?
  • like x 1

#59 DeadMeat

  • Guest
  • 151 posts
  • 160

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:12 PM

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. (and have to face the wrath of the future versions of PETA for failing to take good care of your simulated conscious(if that's even possible in a fully deterministic world) pets. Putting them through plagues, aging, war and other lovely bits of earth history.)

Edited by DeadMeat, 18 December 2012 - 01:35 PM.

  • like x 1

#60 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:40 PM

It might not indeed, but I'm not 100% that it won't, as some people seem to be :)

As for the initial state, what if you had only the end state of 5 particles and wanted to know their initial state? Then you could do a simulation where you start with, say, 1000 different potential initial states (discarding some states which you know are impossible), apply the laws of physics, and see which one of these simulations takes you to the end state. The one that gives the correct end state is the one with the the correct initial state.

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.

https://en.wikipedia...termined_system

This doesn't seem impossible to me at all, and the fact that the universe has much more particles than five seems like a size-related problem, not a logical problem.

Unfortunately the problem is logical.

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.

This brings to mind the hypothesis that the universe is most likely a simulation, since if it is possible to simulate a universe inside the real universe, then much more simulations must exist than real universes, which means that it's more probable for a given human to exist inside a simulation rather than the real universe. Is there a refutation for this idea, other than simulations being too complex?

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.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users