• 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

#2071 Julia36

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

Posted 22 February 2015 - 06:07 PM

QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY.

How Science is trying to resurrect the dead.


Micro Map of the past being created.

  • Quantum computers and new maths to calculate detailed histories and memories of everyone dead.
  • Face and body reconstructions a million years old already achieved: mind reconstructions coming.
  • 106 billion people to be resurrected within 40 years.

MAIN ARTICLE:~~>(working: Nine pages)
QuantumArchaeology


029a53d4ba8e0529c2e174bcb942e0fac4b9d9f9

TEDxDeExctinction talks website »

<--- MORE INFORMATION BACK THRU THIS THREAD<------



#2072 Julia36

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

Posted 22 February 2015 - 08:08 PM

I actually could not invent a more impossible-sounding thing even if I tried. How are we going to "simulate" private discussions of people 50000 years ago? Hello?

 

I'll go slowley

[A big enough computer could resurrect all possible dead people. ]

 

With me so far?



#2073 Julia36

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

Posted 22 February 2015 - 08:11 PM

http://www.forbes.co...data-analytics/

 

How Data is being Manipulated

 

"As the words and terms pile up, however, so can the hype and shortcuts in understanding.  That’s why it’s been nice to see the industry discussion around next generation analytics evolve beyond ideals and concepts and into the brass tacks of implementation.  A recent story by ITBusinessEdge.com’s Loraine Lawson on “Why Data Lakes Turn Into Data Swamps” is representative of many in arguing how things can easily go awry without solid strategies and resources in place.  The pressure to get it right will only increase as big data ecosystems continue to expand and cloud-based analytic platforms outpace on-premises solutions – by a three to one margin, according to some estimates."

 

34dd79226801a402270485141bf12025.jpg

Quantum Theory



#2074 Julia36

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

Posted 22 February 2015 - 08:32 PM

This is the lost Sherlock Holmes story which hit the media a couple of days ago:

 

I'd be interested in machnie- atomaking a film version of this, which should be possible by 2022 (7 years) at most.

 

3342716a-5a48-4f6d-b2f4-66b7400f6fb7-102

 

"

We’ve had enough of the old romancists and the men of travel, said the Editor. As he blue-pencilled his copy, and made arrangements for the great Saturday edition of the Bazar Book. ‘We want something up-to-date. Why not have a word from “Sherlock Holmes”?’

Editors have only to speak and it is done, at least, they think so. ‘Sherlock Holmes!’ As well talk of interviewing the Man in the Moon. But it does not do to tell Editors all that you think. I had no objections whatever, I assured the Editor, to buttonhole ‘Sherlock Holmes,’ but to do so I should have to go to London.

 

‘London!’ scornfully sniffed the Great Man. ‘And you profess to be a journalist? Have you never heard of the telegraph, the telephone, or the phonograh? Go to London! And are you not aware that all journalists are supposed to be qualified members of the Institute of Fiction, and to be qualified to make use of the Faculty of Imagination? By the use of the latter men have been interviewed, who were hundreds of miles away; some have been “interviewed” without either knowledge or consent. See that you have a topical article ready for the press for Saturday. Good day’.’

 

I was dismissed and had to find copy by hook or by crook. Well, the Faculty of Imagination might be worth a trial.

The familiar house in Sloan Street met my bewildered gaze. The door shut, the blinds drawn. I entered; doors are no barrier to one who uses the Faculty of Imagination. The soft light from an electric bulb flooded the room. ‘Sherlock Holmes’ sits bu the side of the table’ Dr Watson is on his feet about to leave for the night. Sherlock Holmes, as has lately been shown by a prominent journal, is a pronounced Free Trader. Dr Watson is a mild Protectionist, who would take his gruelling behind a Martello tower, as Lord Goschen wittily put it, but not ‘lying down!’ The twain had just finished a stiff argument on Fiscal policy. Holmes log.-

 

‘And when shall I see you again, Watson? The inquiry into the “mysteries of the Secret Cabinet” will be continued in Edinburgh on Saturday. Do you mind a run down to Scotland? You would get some capital data which you might turn to good account later.’

 

‘I am very sorry,’ replied Dr Watson. ‘I should have liked to have gone with you, but a prior engagement prevents me. I will, however, have the pleasure of being in kindly Scottish company that day. I, also, am going to Scotland.’

 

‘Ah! Then you are going to the Border country at that time?’

 

‘How do you know that?’

 

‘My dear Watson, it’s all a matter of deduction.’

 

‘Will you explain?’

 

‘Well, when a man becomes absorbed in a certain theme, the murder will out some day. In many discussions you and I have on the fiscal question from time to time I have not failed to notice that you have taken up an attitude antagonistic to a certain school of thought, and on several occasions you have commented on the passing of “so-called’ reforms, as you describe them, which you say were not the result of a spontaneous movement from or by the people, but solely due to the pressure of the Manchester School of politicians appealing to the mob. One of these allusions you made a peculiar reference to “Huz an’ Mainchester” who had “turned the world upside down.” The word “Huz” stuck to me, but after consulting many authors without learning anything as to the source of the word, I one day in reading a provincial paper noticed the same expression, which the writer said was descriptive of the way Hawick people looked at the progress of Reform. “Huz an’ Mainchester’ led the way. So, thought I, Watson has a knowledge of Hawick. I was still further confirmed in this idea by hearing you in several absent moments crooning a weird song of the Norwegian God Thor. Again I made enquires, and writing to a friend in the Sounth country I procured a copy of “Teribus.” So, I reasoned, so - there’s something in the air! What attraction has Hawick for Watson?’

 

‘Wonderful,’ Watson said, ‘and - ‘

 

‘Yes, and when you characterised the action of the German Government in seeking to hamper Canadian trade by raising her tariff wall against her, as a case of :Sour Plims,” and again in a drawing room asked a mutual lady friend to sing you that fine old song, “Braw, braw lads,” I was curious enough to look up the old ballad, and finding it had reference to a small town near to Hawick, I began to see a ray of daylight. Hawick had a place in your mind; likewise so had Galashiels - so much was apparent. The question to be decided was why?’

 

‘So far so good. And - ‘

 

‘Later still the plot deepened. Why, when I was retaiing to you the steps that led up to the arrest of the Norwood builder by the impression of his thumb, I found a very great surprise that you were not listening at all to my reasoning, but were lilting a very sweet - a very sweet tune Watson - “The Flowers of the Forest;” then I in turn consulted an authority on the subject, and found that that lovely if tragic song had a special reference to Selkirk. And you remember, Watson, how very enthusiastic you grew all of a sudden on the subject of Common0Ridings, and how much you studied the history of James IV., with special reference to Flodden Field. All these things speak, Watson, to the orderly brain of a thinker. Hawick, Galashiels, and Selkirk. What did the combination mean? I felt I must sold the problem, Watson; so that night when you left me, after we had discussed the “Tragedy of a Divided House,” I ordered in a ton of tobacco, wrapped my cloak about me, and spent the night in thought. When you came round in the morning the problem was solved. I could not on the accumulative evidence but come to the conclusion that you contemplated another Parliamentary contest. Watson, you have the Border Burghs in your eye!’

 

‘In my heard, Holmes,’ said Watson.

 

‘And where do you travel to on Saturday, Watson?’

 

‘I am going to Selkirk; I have an engagement there to open a Bazaar.’

 

‘Is it in aide of a Bridge, Watson?’

 

‘Yes,’ replied Watson in surprise; ‘but how do you know? I have never mentioned the matter to you.’

 

‘By word, no’ but by your action you have revealed the bent of your mind.’

 

‘Impossible!’

 

‘Let me explain. A week ago you came round to my rooms and asked for a look at “Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome.” (You know I admire Macaulay’s works, and have a full set.) That volume, after a casual look at, you took with you. When you returned it a day or two later I noticed it was marked with a slip of paper at the “Lay of Horatius,” and I detected a faint pencil mark on the slip noting that the closing stanza was very appropriate. As you know, Watson, the lay is all descriptive of the keeping of a bridge. Let me remind you how nicely you would perorate -

 

When the goodman mends his armour

And trims his helmet’s plume,

When the goodwife’s shuttle merrily

Goes flashing through the loom,

With weeping and with laughter.

Still the story told -

How well Horatius kept the bridge,

In the brave days of old.

Could I, being mortal, help thinking you were bent on such exploit yourself?’

‘Very true!’

‘Well, goodbye, Watson; shall be glad of your company after Saturday. Remember Horatius’s words when you go to Border Burghs :- “How can man die better than facing fearful odds.” But there, these words are only illustrations. Safe journey, and success to the Brig!’

 

_77772322_sherlockholmes,investigatingam

A challenging QA skill would be to resurrect S.H.

 

Unfortunately this would be ruled out by the Quantum Archaeology Grid (above)


Edited by stopgam, 22 February 2015 - 08:39 PM.


#2075 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,339 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 22 February 2015 - 09:41 PM

So where is the information of a discussion between Og and Gog in 50000BC? Are you sure it's not 50000 light-years away and receding fast? You seriously think this will be "simulated" around 2020? And how wouodl you prove/falsify that the simulation gives correct results? 



#2076 Julia36

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

Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:35 PM

2 yrs ago:

 

Walking robots have been a major obstacle. Both USA & Japan are advancing it.


platypus you have to reply to my question before you raise another set of issues.


Edited by stopgam, 22 February 2015 - 11:36 PM.


#2077 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:39 PM

 

I actually could not invent a more impossible-sounding thing even if I tried. How are we going to "simulate" private discussions of people 50000 years ago? Hello?

 

I'll go slowley

[A big enough computer could resurrect all possible dead people. ]

 

With me so far?

 

 

Not it couldn't. Given that you're so gung ho about quantum mechanics, you should know about the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even with an infinitely fast computer, you still wouldn't have all the information regarding the position and momentum of all particles. When you try to determine momentum it disturbs position, and when you try to observe position it throws off momentum. Thus you'll never have the ability to generate enough accuracy unless you have a time machine that could approximate a best guess, but which may turn out completely differently because the universe is probably non deterministic.

 

You also need a theory of everything to be able to calculate all the effects from dark matter, dark energy, and various quantum fluctuations. You demand basically all of sci fi for this to occur.

 

Then explain how you're going to get investors to bother with this because there's no profit motive, and therefore no probable likelihood that it will occur.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2078 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:43 PM

QUANTUM ARCHAEOLOGY.

How Science is trying to resurrect the dead.


Micro Map of the past being created.

  • Quantum computers and new maths to calculate detailed histories and memories of everyone dead.
  • Face and body reconstructions a million years old already achieved: mind reconstructions coming.
  • 106 billion people to be resurrected within 40 years.

MAIN ARTICLE:~~>(working: Nine pages)
QuantumArchaeology


029a53d4ba8e0529c2e174bcb942e0fac4b9d9f9

TEDxDeExctinction talks website »

<--- MORE INFORMATION BACK THRU THIS THREAD<------

 

Here we go again with the new "maths." What maths are you even talking about? Demonstrate some of the statistics and the mathematics. And explain with a proof how you're going to regenerate the past using mathematics by itself.

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#2079 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:48 PM

Another important point regarding your new maths:

 

"Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations."

 

"The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other. "These uncertainty relations give us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes."[55]"

 

"Chaotic radioactivity is the next explanatory challenge for physicists supporting determinism"

 

Thus your infinitely fast computer will never have enough information to be accurate in order to avoid sensitivity to initial conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia....fic_perspective


Edited by serp777, 22 February 2015 - 11:49 PM.


#2080 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:12 AM

platypus: Afraid if you wont reply to my question we cant have a discourse.

 


Edited by stopgam, 23 February 2015 - 12:42 AM.


#2081 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:50 AM

Another important point regarding your new maths:

 

"Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations."

 

"The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other. "These uncertainty relations give us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes."[55]"

 

"Chaotic radioactivity is the next explanatory challenge for physicists supporting determinism"

 

Thus your infinitely fast computer will never have enough information to be accurate in order to avoid sensitivity to initial conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia....fic_perspective

 

Let me ask you a question as platypus refuses to reply on his:

 

Do you assume the cosmos is governed by laws?]

 



#2082 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:06 AM

 

Another important point regarding your new maths:

 

"Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations."

 

"The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other. "These uncertainty relations give us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes."[55]"

 

"Chaotic radioactivity is the next explanatory challenge for physicists supporting determinism"

 

Thus your infinitely fast computer will never have enough information to be accurate in order to avoid sensitivity to initial conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia....fic_perspective

 

Let me ask you a question as platypus refuses to reply on his:

 

Do you assume the cosmos is governed by laws?]

 

 

Don't answer my question with a question. Ill answer it anways but considering you complained about this earlier I think you should just answer my questions or at least address some of my points. Are you aware of the heisenberg uncertainty principle?

 

But Yes I assume the cosmos is probably governed by laws, but is also affected partially by random chance and chaos.



#2083 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:15 AM

Microsoft powers ahead with A.I. personal assistants

 

slow take off of A.I. Fast may move the A.I. into another universe before we notice it's smart.

 

 

Turing Test was passed last year @ Reading (fooled 30% of judges it was human)

 

“At the moment it’s progressive intelligence, not autonomous intelligence,” says Marcus Ash, group program manager for Cortana, which is enabled on phones with the Windows operating system, including Microsoft’s Lumia devices. People do not want to be surprised by how much their phones are starting to take over, he says: “We made an explicit decision to be a little less ‘magical’ and a little more transparent.”

http://www.ft.com/cm...144feab7de.html

 

[Japanese toys and home robots due June/August this year on shuffles or wheels..walking later in the year possibly

merging with ibm smart database Watson to react intelligently to whoever they're serving.

 

It isn't a leap to actuate robots from essentially MIT's chatbots into the environment just you need flexible walking robots for heavy tasks at present (that may not exclude small but very powerful tinkerbell drones carrying a lot of energy later).

 

 

 

bz-panel-04-11-14.jpg

 

 



#2084 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:27 AM

 

 

I actually could not invent a more impossible-sounding thing even if I tried. How are we going to "simulate" private discussions of people 50000 years ago? Hello?

 

I'll go slowley

[A big enough computer could resurrect all possible dead people. ]

 

With me so far?

 

 

Not it couldn't.

 

[Yes it could:

 

I'll explain

 

a big enough computer could make every possible combination of particles back as far as it wished,  that would include people who are much simpler  than environments (because they are part of them). It is merely as case of permutations of everything from the smallest relevant particle upwards to a formed human.

 

Every variation of person including the ones with variations of thought acting in every possible environment would indeed resurrect any desired person - and lots of other stuff you dont want:) ]



#2085 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:38 AM

en

But Yes I assume the cosmos is probably governed by laws, but is also affected partially by random chance and chaos.

 

You cant have randomness if you accept lawfulness. They are complete and mutually exclusive notions unless you wish to change the meaning of words.

 


Edited by stopgam, 23 February 2015 - 04:20 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#2086 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:49 AM

Wearable printable armband Sensor

today IEEE

 

feveralarmar.jpg

http://phys.org/news...-printable.html

 

2014 the year of 3D printing

2015 is the year of the robot.

2017 the year of genomic biomedicine

2022 the year of Artificial Intelligence.

2025 Resurrections will start.

2029 Superintelligence (post human accelerating A.I.)

 

 

 

groundhog-day.jpg

 



#2087 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:37 AM

IBM_Watson.PNG

18c6wfrpey00zjpg.jpg

 

We can test the faithfulness of QA vs Crynics by mapping out a dead person in simulations from both sources and comparing them.

 

There should be no difference if QA is correct.

 



#2088 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:40 AM



#2089 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 23 February 2015 - 06:37 AM

 

en

But Yes I assume the cosmos is probably governed by laws, but is also affected partially by random chance and chaos.

 

You cant have randomness if you accept lawfulness. They are complete and mutually exclusive notions unless you wish to change the meaning of words.

 

 

What are you talking about? I thought you we're well versed in "maths." Computer algorithms use random number generators all the time. They follow strict laws but incorporate randomness. They're not mutually exclusive at all. Mathematics use models with randomness included all the time. They are not mutually exclusive whatsoever and you've failed to prove that at all.

 

I'd like to know how you're justifying this assertion. Again, are you aware of the heisenberg uncertainty principle?
 


  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2090 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 23 February 2015 - 06:46 AM

 

 

 

I actually could not invent a more impossible-sounding thing even if I tried. How are we going to "simulate" private discussions of people 50000 years ago? Hello?

 

I'll go slowley

[A big enough computer could resurrect all possible dead people. ]

 

With me so far?

 

 

Not it couldn't.

 

[Yes it could:

 

I'll explain

 

a big enough computer could make every possible combination of particles back as far as it wished,  that would include people who are much simpler  than environments (because they are part of them). It is merely as case of permutations of everything from the smallest relevant particle upwards to a formed human.

 

Every variation of person including the ones with variations of thought acting in every possible environment would indeed resurrect any desired person - and lots of other stuff you dont want:) ]

 

 

How do you know there are a finite number of combinations?  And please enlighten me about what the smallest relevant particle is. According to string theory there are dimensions wrapped up at the tiniest scales. Are you going to simulate every dimension as well? Where is this theory of everything you're getting? How do you know its possible to find a theory of everything? It may never be determined or proved.

 

Also are you aware of how many different combinations there are? To simulate all the combinations you would need a computer that had the most efficient memory constructed from all the matter in the universe. This is because you would have to simulate dark matter particles which are 40 times more numerous than regular particles. Do you have proof that Moore's law will keep going forever basically? We're so far away from what you're describing even in terms of an exponential assuming it continued past the point with atomic scale transistors.

 

Also how do you know which particular combination corresponds to our universe? You're talking about a computer that simulates the fifth dimension FFS. Every possible timeline with every possible circumstance within the laws of physics. but to be accurate you probably need to calculate all possible universes with all possibles constants on nature.

 



#2091 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,339 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 February 2015 - 07:15 AM

 

en

But Yes I assume the cosmos is probably governed by laws, but is also affected partially by random chance and chaos.

 

You cant have randomness if you accept lawfulness. They are complete and mutually exclusive notions unless you wish to change the meaning of words.

 

That is incorrect. So QA doesn't work in a world with "true randomness"?

 


 


Edited by platypus, 23 February 2015 - 07:16 AM.


#2092 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 23 February 2015 - 07:20 AM

 

 

en

But Yes I assume the cosmos is probably governed by laws, but is also affected partially by random chance and chaos.

 

You cant have randomness if you accept lawfulness. They are complete and mutually exclusive notions unless you wish to change the meaning of words.

 

That is incorrect. So QA doesn't work in a world with "true randomness"?

 


 

 

Well, he claims that with a big enough computer you'd be able to simulate the fifth dimension--all possible timelines with all possible configurations of subatomic particles. From this he would find our precise universe (somehow) and then use that information to resurrect people.

 

This is incredibly unlikely and I don't think he realizes how big the computer would have to be. It is fascinating science fiction to say the least. It may not even be possible in the universe has some infinite dimension or level of precision which could not be simulated. It would also need a theory of everything that he has not provided. His best argument to address it was "new maths". I'd love to see this math personally.
 


  • Unfriendly x 1

#2093 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,339 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 February 2015 - 09:01 AM

If we think about a private discussion that happened 50000 years ago the target is to recreate the vibrations in the air in order to capture the words? Why would such retrieval be possible so long after the fact? 



#2094 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:36 PM

 

 


Computer algorithms use random number generators all the time. They follow strict laws but incorporate randomness. They're not mutually exclusive at all. Mathematics use models with randomness included all the time.


 

 

No they dont. They call it 'randomness' but it is sequences and complexity. You may have to confirm this with an eminent mathematician.

 

I am assuming the cosmos is lawful -  and also that we have a long way to go observing it:)



#2095 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:39 PM

If we think about a private discussion that happened 50000 years ago the target is to recreate the vibrations in the air in order to capture the words? Why would such retrieval be possible so long after the fact? 

 

The time from an event makes no difference to whether it can be retraced if the cosmos is made of laws. By following the laws back cross referencing them with data bases built from artefacts, you must inevitably recreate the past.



#2096 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:42 PM

 


 

This is incredibly unlikely and I don't think he realizes how big the computer would have to be.

 

No you cant do that in argument, we have already established the computer could be big enough.

 

But an argument is to find the truth of things and I beg you to narrow it down to ONE thing at a time.

 

If you raise other objections before one point has been resolved it muddies the waters.


Edited by stopgam, 23 February 2015 - 04:11 PM.


#2097 Julia36

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

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:59 PM

 


 

How do you know there are a finite number of combinations?  And please enlighten me about what the smallest relevant particle is. According to string theory there are dimensions wrapped up at the tiniest scales. Are you going to simulate every dimension as well? Where is this theory of everything you're getting? How do you know its possible to find a theory of everything? It may never be determined or proved.

 

Also are you aware of how many different combinations there are? To simulate all the combinations you would need a computer that had the most efficient memory constructed from all the matter in the universe. This is because you would have to simulate dark matter particles which are 40 times more numerous than regular particles. Do you have proof that Moore's law will keep going forever basically? We're so far away from what you're describing even in terms of an exponential assuming it continued past the point with atomic scale transistors.

 

Also how do you know which particular combination corresponds to our universe? You're talking about a computer that simulates the fifth dimension FFS. Every possible timeline with every possible circumstance within the laws of physics. but to be accurate you probably need to calculate all possible universes with all possibles constants on nature.

 

 

Yo want me answer all these?
 

 

>>>How do you know there are a finite number of combinations? <<

 

I'll assume a dead person isn't infinite using best medical practice.

For instance if you go to have your tonsils out, the surgeon doesn't need to think past a certain size.

 

>>>And please enlighten me about what the smallest relevant particle is. <<<

 

That is a fair point. For a person's brain it is thought to be 5 nanometres.

 

>>>According to string theory there are dimensions wrapped up at the tiniest scales. Are you going to simulate every dimension as well?<<<

 

5 nanometres.

 

>>>>Where is this theory of everything you're getting?<<<<

 

The Quantum Archaeology Grid.

 

>>>>How do you know its possible to find a theory of everything?<<<<

 

I'm an Einsteinian determinist.

 

>>>>It may never be determined or proved.<<<<

 

It only has to work in the parametres of the investigation ur making ie resurrecting men.

 

 

 

>>>Also are you aware of how many different combinations there are?<<<

 

A finite number.

 

>>To simulate all the combinations you would need a computer that had the most efficient memory constructed from all the matter in the universe. This is because you would have to simulate dark matter particles which are 40 times more numerous than regular particles. Do you have proof that Moore's law will keep going forever basically? We're so far away from what you're describing even in terms of an exponential assuming it continued past the point with atomic scale transistors.<<<

 

You have reverted to size of calculation argument, and we've already agreed the computer can be any size.

 

>>>>Also how do you know which particular combination corresponds to our universe?<<<<

 

You stay in the limits of the recovery and in this universe. Mainly on the very surface of this world

 

>>>>You're talking about a computer that simulates the fifth dimension FFS. Every possible timeline with every possible circumstance within the laws of physics. but to be accurate you probably need to calculate all possible universes with all possibles constants on nature.<<<

 

You have reverted to challenge the size of  computer.

The fact you are doing so only confirms you see the importance of calculation.

We can discuss how we calculate later, eg you dont need a computer the size of a trillion oranges to sum a trillion oranges.

 

I have answered each of the issues on the last 3 pages over & over again.

 

But Resurrections have started on ancient mechanisms, facial forensic reconstructions and de-extinctions, and you can deduce facts thought lost  from only a few known facts in the present. That is a basis of forensics, archaeology medicine and legal court cases.

 

coming in 7 years:

20.jpg

amin_.jpg

Polychrome-reconstruction-of-head-of-cal

wegweg.jpg

adolf-hitler.jpg

Caravaggio_-_La_Deposizione_di_Cristo.jp

north-korean-leader-kim-jong-il_11.jpg

 

mohammed_cartoon_bombers_2.jpg


Edited by stopgam, 23 February 2015 - 04:14 PM.


#2098 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,339 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:25 PM

Many computations that you might want to do are not possible within this universe, so the size of computation is a real limitation. 



#2099 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,339 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:27 PM

 

If we think about a private discussion that happened 50000 years ago the target is to recreate the vibrations in the air in order to capture the words? Why would such retrieval be possible so long after the fact? 

 

The time from an event makes no difference to whether it can be retraced if the cosmos is made of laws. By following the laws back cross referencing them with data bases built from artefacts, you must inevitably recreate the past.

 

The information might be undetectable by now. If you had a vast sensor grid 50000 years ago the situation might be different, but that's something you will never have, at least not until time travel is viable, which might be never. 



#2100 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 10
  • Location:who cares

Posted 23 February 2015 - 07:05 PM

 

 

 


Computer algorithms use random number generators all the time. They follow strict laws but incorporate randomness. They're not mutually exclusive at all. Mathematics use models with randomness included all the time.

 

 

No they dont. They call it 'randomness' but it is sequences and complexity. You may have to confirm this with an eminent mathematician.

 

I am assuming the cosmos is lawful -  and also that we have a long way to go observing it:)

 

 

Actually they do. Analysis of good RNGs have shown a flat distribution of large amounts of numbers in a given sequence. So it can't get any more random than a flat distribution that usually has a different order. In fact the random number generator is so random that apple had to modify their music player to be less random so that the same song wouldn't pop up twice in a row. Explain to me how you get more randomness then a flat distribution?

 

And randomness is apparent in nature too. Consider the double slit experiment. What determines where an individual photon will end up based on the probabilities determined? Even though the probabilities are deterministic the individual photon follows complete randomness to where it is assigned.

 

"Algorithmic information theory studies, among other topics, what constitutes a random sequence. The central idea is that a string of bits is random if and only if it is shorter than any computer program that can produce that string (Kolmogorov randomness)—this means that random strings are those that cannot be compressed. Pioneers of this field include Andrey Kolmogorov and his student Per Martin-Löf, Ray Solomonoff, and Gregory Chaitin."

 

So randomness has a precise mathematical definition that computers align with.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users