Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^^It's still happening in a physical medium which is limited by the speed of light.
Yes in the experiment, when the electrons are moving their spin is unknown. Yet once you make one's spin "up", with an electromagnetic field, the other will always have "down" spin. Not 50-50, aways.
If you just measured one, of course the other would be opposite. The modern, real-life experiments are more complex, but end with the same results. Regardless of if it started as up or down, forcing one's spin to "up" causes (somehow) the other electron to always have down-spin. Weird eh?
 
5cats said:
^^^It's still happening in a physical medium which is limited by the speed of light.
Yes in the experiment, when the electrons are moving their spin is unknown. Yet once you make one's spin "up", with an electromagnetic field, the other will always have "down" spin. Not 50-50, aways.
If you just measured one, of course the other would be opposite. The modern, real-life experiments are more complex, but end with the same results. Regardless of if it started as up or down, forcing one's spin to "up" causes (somehow) the other electron to always have down-spin. Weird eh?


do you have reference for that? Just I don't believe you can 'force' the spin to be up or down, without destroying the entaglement between the particles. If you could, then it would indeed be possible for humans to send information faster than lght by using the method you described above and adopting a binary system where spin up representat a '1' and spind down a '0' .

Lord Olleus said:
What if the balls of the cradle where infintely hard so that they would not get compressed when hitting each other?

Again there is no such things as an 'infinitely hard' material in this case. Energy transfer between the balls of the Newton's cradel is via the electromagnetic force so imagine the following:

you have two magnets arranged N-S S-N. If you bring one towards the other the two poles will repel and the second magnet will move away. This is due to the changing magnetic field, which travels at the speed of light. If you had *really* strong magnets such that they started to move when they came within 300 000 km of each other (how fast light travels in a second) it would take a second between moving magnet 1 and the time with which magnet 2 would start to move.

In the Newton's cradel much the same is happening. As the balls come together there is an electromagnetic interaction between them resulting in the second ball being repelled. In this case it is due to a change in electric field which again occurs at (slightly under) the speed of light. Obviously for normal sized Newton's cradles this appears to occur instantaneously as the distances are so small, but scale it up and the effect would become noticeable.

As an aside, the same effect applies to Gravity. The Sun is roughly 8 minutes away from the earth if you're travelling at the speed of light. Thus if the sun magically disappeared this second, we on earth would not know about it for 8 minutes. It would continue to shine and the earth would continue in a stable orbit even though there was now nothing to orbit. 8 minutes later all hell would break loose as the sky would go dark and we would be flung off into space. All becasue the information realting to the sun not being there any more would take 8 minutes to reach us.....
 
d80tb7 said:
Unfortunately it would not. The energy is transferred by compressing the bonds between the atoms of the material making up the Newton's cradle. This bond compression occurs at some speed under that of light, hence no super luminal energy transfer.

The speed in question is the "speed of sound" in the medium in which the kinetic energy is being transfered.

In the case of steel balls, that speed is fairly high.
In the case of a gas of mostly nitrogen, its fairly low.
 
d80tb7 said:
do you have reference for that? Just I don't believe you can 'force' the spin to be up or down, without destroying the entaglement between the particles. If you could, then it would indeed be possible for humans to send information faster than lght by using the method you described above and adopting a binary system where spin up representat a '1' and spind down a '0' .

Yes it sounds funky doesnt it... just not quite right..

But its correct.

The explanation I like is that from John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, who postulated that a particle cannot be emitted without (what it would seem to us to be) a known priori destiny. The particles "know" ahead of time that we will be testing their spins because they are constantly interacting with the future.

If we are GOING to measure the spin of an electron.. then the particles, even before they are emitted, are influenced by that measurement. Thats their theory anyways.
 
d80tb7 said:
If you could, then it would indeed be possible for humans to send information faster than lght by using the method you described above and adopting a binary system where spin up representat a '1' and spind down a '0' .

That's what they're thinking it'll be useful for. However, it isn't easy. You gotta collect trillions of these electrons (not that hard, they're tiny) find a way to store them without changing their order or polarity (hummm, not easy) and finally find a way to access them one at a time (ugh! that's tough!) in order to send the information.
I'm not sure, but I think it would require a second 'box' to send a message back.

In Civ4 application, you could talk with Alpha Centauri faster than calling from America to Europe :lol:
 
now i see why my idea would fail. Makes sence now.

Is their any chance of this this thread going back to the original topic or have we already alienated everyone?
 
dbergan said:
My point is that there is obvious proof that we are part supernatural ourselves. What's the evidence?

1) We have free will. We punish criminals and decorate heros. We thank friends for being helpful and Mr. Zombie made it abundantly clear that he chooses not to talk to me.

If we have free will then that means that we are some kind of entity outside of the interlocking cause-and-effect structure of the material universe. Only something supernatural could possibly have free will because everything natural follows natural laws and cannot escape them. It also means we have intelligence (which at the beginning I showed that an etymology shows to be "choose between").

How do you know that our free will (or the illusion of it) doesn't come from natural processes? This isn't proof - this is a hypothesis on your part without any proof at all.

2) We have awareness. An universe of only matter and energy would never know it existed... because awareness is neither matter nor energy.

Once again, a hypothesis - not proof.

3) We have a standard of logic. Outside of every brain exists this standard that we all use to judge logical reasons from illogical reasons. This standard is also neither matter nor energy, but we know it exists... to deny it is the most illogical thing ever.

According to you. Once again - this is your hypothesis, not proof of any sort.

For these three reasons, I submit that it is impossible to say that humans are only material (or natural)

You said that the fact that we have free will implies that the supernatural is involved. I asked you for proof of this. Your proof is "The supernatural is involved because we have free will."

This is a circular argument.

Saying you don't believe in free will because there is no scientific evidence for it is like saying, "This wall can't be painted, because my hammer won't do it."

I'm not saying that I don't believe in free will.

Lord Olleus is right, but personally I don't see why God couldn't create the Big Bang, plus all the evolution that followed. What is science's explaination for the "bang"? Oh, it just happened. Hummm, sounds like faith to me. Lol!

Most scientists' position on the cause of the big bang - "We don't know". That isn't faith.

do you have reference for that? Just I don't believe you can 'force' the spin to be up or down, without destroying the entaglement between the particles. If you could, then it would indeed be possible for humans to send information faster than lght by using the method you described above and adopting a binary system where spin up representat a '1' and spind down a '0' .

I haven't read much of what you guys are talking about (i had a looooot to drink last night ;) ) but yes, it is possible to send information faster than the speed of light using entangled particles. At least according to the latest Brian Greene book I read last year.
 
Lord Olleus said:
now i see why my idea would fail. Makes sence now.

Is their any chance of this this thread going back to the original topic or have we already alienated everyone?
Wait a bit, in a few moments UFO will enter the topic and explain us everything - especially how the speed of light affects the free will that affects the artificial intelligence that affects Kasparov that affects CIV 4.
 
RE: Free will, awareness, and a standard of logic...

warpus said:
How do you know that our free will (or the illusion of it) doesn't come from natural processes? This isn't proof - this is a hypothesis on your part without any proof at all.



Once again, a hypothesis - not proof.



According to you. Once again - this is your hypothesis, not proof of any sort.

I have free will. I have self-awareness. I recognize that my ideas can be judged by an outside standard of logic. You call these "hypotheses"... why? They are bona fide observable facts. Every courtroom in every nation on Earth stands as a testament to the notion that humans are free and we hold them accountable to their actions. Every sentient human by definition has self-awareness. And as for a standard of logic, if it didn't exist we couldn't even have this conversation. The arguments we use back and forth assume that the other person knows what a valid argument is.

It is complete absurdity to say these things are mere illusions. No scientist would ever say such a thing in their department. "Well it seems like all these species evolved... but that could just be the illusion of evolution. Evolution doesn't really exist." "All the fires I know of need oxygen to burn... but that could just be the illusion of combustion. Combustion doesn't really exist."
 
warpus said:
You said that the fact that we have free will implies that the supernatural is involved. I asked you for proof of this. Your proof is "The supernatural is involved because we have free will."

This is a circular argument.

That wasn't my answer. If you read post #106 you would have seen my answer... Nature is governed by natural laws. Natural laws are all of the sort: if X, then Y. Therefore nature is all governed by simple cause and effect and nothing else. This means that if something has free will, it has to be outside the global interlocking pattern of cause and effect... otherwise it is not free. And to be outside of nature is, by definition, supernatural. Therefore, anything with free will must be (part) supernatural... or else it is a slave to determinism (cause and effect).

Or to go about it another way, think about anything natural that isn't living. Is it free? Are the tides free? Is the weather free? Is the orbit of the moon free? Or are they all governed by cause and effect?

Of course. To be natural means to be subject to natural laws. So if something isn't governed by cause and effect, if it is actually "free" of natural laws, then it must not be natural.
 
dbergan said:
RE: Free will, awareness, and a standard of logic...



I have free will. I have self-awareness. I recognize that my ideas can be judged by an outside standard of logic. You call these "hypotheses"... why? They are bona fide observable facts.

Oh come on! The act of declaring it doesnt make it a fact.

dbergan said:
Every courtroom in every nation on Earth stands as a testament to the notion that humans are free and we hold them accountable to their actions.

What does a courtroom, or a "justice system," know about science?

dbergan said:
Every sentient human by definition has self-awareness.

What does self-awareness have to do with free will? Nothing. Thats what!

dbergan said:
It is complete absurdity to say these things are mere illusions. No scientist would ever say such a thing in their department. "Well it seems like all these species evolved... but that could just be the illusion of evolution. Evolution doesn't really exist."

You were going good.. you were saying exactly what a scientist would say.. until you "drew" the conclusion for him that evolution doesnt really exist. A scientist will neither tell you that evolution "exists" or doesnt - he will tell you that evidence supports the theory.

Thats the essence of science.

dbergan said:
"All the fires I know of need oxygen to burn... but that could just be the illusion of combustion. Combustion doesn't really exist."

More poor logic.

Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thats logic 101. Maybe you should take a beginners class on that.

Secondly, even if it were the case that it was evidence of absence, it would not be evidence of the last sentence.

You are drawing some really really short straws.

The common definition of "free will" is not in evidence as existing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that there is a strong lack of evidence for the claim. Since you like analogies so much, its like saying that flying saucers must be visiting the earth because so many people claim that they've seen them.

"Common knowledge" does not make a fact.
 
dbergan said:
I have free will. I have self-awareness. I recognize that my ideas can be judged by an outside standard of logic. You call these "hypotheses"... why? They are bona fide observable facts. Every courtroom in every nation on Earth stands as a testament to the notion that humans are free and we hold them accountable to their actions. Every sentient human by definition has self-awareness. And as for a standard of logic, if it didn't exist we couldn't even have this conversation. The arguments we use back and forth assume that the other person knows what a valid argument is.

It is complete absurdity to say these things are mere illusions. No scientist would ever say such a thing in their department. "Well it seems like all these species evolved... but that could just be the illusion of evolution. Evolution doesn't really exist." "All the fires I know of need oxygen to burn... but that could just be the illusion of combustion. Combustion doesn't really exist.

We might have free will, or we might not. I do not wish to debate this.

That wasn't my answer. If you read post #106 you would have seen my answer... Nature is governed by natural laws. Natural laws are all of the sort: if X, then Y. Therefore nature is all governed by simple cause and effect and nothing else.

WRONG. Have you ever studied quantum physics? It was believed for a very long time that the universe was entirely deterministic - this was the Newtonian view of the universe. But then people like Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein came along and threw that way of thinking out the window.

Not everything in this universe follows rules of cause and effect (ie. if X then Y). The universe is NOT deterministic. For example, a decaying particle lets off a certain amount of energy every once in a while. This is more commonly known as radioactive decay. The time that it "picks" to decay is not determined by anything at all in the universe - it is entirely random. It could decay right now, it could decay in 5 minutes, or it could decay 5 days from now. There is NO WAY to tell since the process is entirely random and not influenced by any single cause. It is not deterministic.

Are you aware of this principle? It is what the famous Shrodiger's Cat thoughtexperiment is based on. If you've never heard of any of this, I suggest that you pick up a book or two and get acquainted with it - it is quite interesting.

This means that if something has free will, it has to be outside the global interlocking pattern of cause and effect... otherwise it is not free. And to be outside of nature is, by definition, supernatural. Therefore, anything with free will must be (part) supernatural... or else it is a slave to determinism (cause and effect).

Your entire argument falls apart since the universe is NOT deterministic.
 
Dusty Monkey said:
Oh come on! The act of declaring it doesnt make it a fact.

What does a courtroom, or a "justice system," know about science?

What does self-awareness have to do with free will? Nothing. Thats what!

Awww! Be nice to dbergan!~
Dusty Monkey & warpus are confusing the subjective with the objective. Subjectively, dbergan knows he's self-aware. Of course, you don't know that, about him I mean lol!
Again dbergan is talking about how people all over the world believe in and act like there is free will.
Without self-awareness, there is no free will because there's no "will" to be free. No being, no knowledge, no understanding. That kind of will. Look at my signature darn it!!!
I think there's a more accurate term for what dbergan's talking about when he says "super-natural" which would be "preternatural". He's defining the laws of nature as cause & effect, and free will as, free & therefor "outside" of natural laws. Try understanding what he's actually saying rather than reacting to what you think he's saying. Just because some of nature is seen as random doesn't invalidate the rest of nature being deterministic, eh?

Again I reiterate: (is that redundant?)
If there's no free will then nothing matters. So if you don't believe in free will, why should you care? Oh, you were pre-determined to care... :mischief:

Edit: I cross posted with warpus, but my reply to Dusty Monkey also fit nicely as a reply to warpus, lol! And Lord Olleus is correct, there may be underlying laws to things like radioactive decay, we just haven't found them yet. Or there may not be, but that doesn't change the rest of the natural laws.
 
How do you know that it is not deterministic?
Maybe it is and we just haven't found the cause that links to the effect. Taking your example of radioactice decay. Sure right now we don't know when it is going to decay. But then the ancients did not know how to predict solar eclipses, but that doesn't mean that they were random. Maybe in the future we will fing out what causes a single particle to decay, and the same thing might happen with quantum theory. Therefor your argument dose not stand.
 
Now, free will: what does it mean? Instead of using just a theological perspective, we can try to define it in a more "scientific" perspective. First, let's try Artificial Intelligence: each AI agent has a built-in "usefulness function" that will give him a "measure" of how desirable or not is each result. Then the AI agent compares the estimated results of the calculated actions against this function, and chooses (acts) according to the "best" result. Best has nothing to do with good and wrong - just with the function. AI agent chooses always an action that maximizes the function - that's rationality.

Let's take now humans: we also have (each one of us) a function for ourselves - but the major difference is that we can "alter" it according to our desires. The evidence of that is the completely different "functions" used by different people in similar situations, and again "good or bad" is something quite subjective. One step further, we humans sometimes take actions that don't maximize our "function" (like the fact that I'm writing all these). That's a kind of EVIDENCE about human free will - the ability of a human to choose "suboptimum" actions and also alter by himself his internal usefulness function. That's also a clear evidence that humans aren't rational.

But theology goes one step further: it says that there is a superior "direction" for each action, and you can say that something is good or wrong (better: ethical or unethical) according to the match with this superior direction. The main problem is that even high priests don't know this direction, so instead of aligning actions to a superior direction they tend to align them with the "common sense of ethics". One isn't the same with the other, and can be easily exactly the opposite. Evidence: just remember how many "ethical" religious wars have been fought, where the "do not kill" clear directive was transformed to whatever each governor wanted.

And finally: the attempt to prove logically the existence of God has a long story of unsuccesful tries. I can safely bet you will not either manage it here, or convince each other. Just as a gift, I give you one simple example of what logic could create when you try to use it for subjects like infinity and God.

God is perfect and includes everything (by definition). There is also devil, who isn't perfect (again by definition). Since God includes everything, he must also "contain" devil (obvious deduction). Since devil isn't perfect, there is a part of God that isn't perfect (again obvious deduction). Since a part of God isn't perfect, he isn't perfect so he isn't God.

So, I wish you good luck with your logical attempts.
 
atreas said:
God is perfect and includes everything (by definition). There is also devil, who isn't perfect (again by definition). Since God includes everything, he must also "contain" devil (obvious deduction). Since devil isn't perfect, there is a part of God that isn't perfect (again obvious deduction). Since a part of God isn't perfect, he isn't perfect so he isn't God.

So, I wish you good luck with your logical attempts.

Thanks!
You (or whomever wrote that stuff origionally) are confusing "perfection" with "infallability" two entirely different things. Like my response in the "Kumbaya" thread, God also includes "bad" things, but that doesn't make Him any less perfect. In theory.

Also>>> I had a dream where there was a book in which God explained all sorts of things to a dwarf robot with a human mind who had developed a soul.
With me so far?
He said that He had created the universe and its Natural Laws. He has to follow those laws too, not because He "has to" but because He wants too. It's pointless to create something and then not allow it to function as you intended.
See? Perfectly flawed. Um, infallably mistaken. Er, you know! Read my sig!
 
I had a dream where my computer was connected to 'the matrix' and i could make any changes i wanted to anyone's life. It was very funny, but probably not true (after all you never know...)
 
Lord Olleus said:
How do you know that it is not deterministic?
Maybe it is and we just haven't found the cause that links to the effect. Taking your example of radioactice decay. Sure right now we don't know when it is going to decay. But then the ancients did not know how to predict solar eclipses, but that doesn't mean that they were random. Maybe in the future we will fing out what causes a single particle to decay, and the same thing might happen with quantum theory. Therefor your argument dose not stand.

It's not that we don't know when it's going to happen, we've figured out that it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine when the atom is going to decay because it is not dependant on anything in this universe - it does not obey the "laws" of cause and effect.

I repeat, the universe is not deterministic.

Here's a tiny bit from wikipedia which is very informative regarding this matter:

wikipedia said:
Since the beginning of the 20th century, quantum mechanics has revealed previously concealed aspects of events. Newtonian physics, taken in isolation rather than as an approximation to quantum mechanics, depicts a universe in which objects move in perfectly determinative ways. At human scale levels of interaction, Newtonian mechanics gives predictions that in many areas check out as completely perfectible, to the accuracy of measurement. Poorly designed and fabricated guns and ammunition scatter their shots rather widely around the center of a target, and better guns produce tighter patterns. Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path, or so we thought. However knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior.

At atomic scales the paths of objects can only be predicted in a probabilistic way. The paths are not exactly specified in a full quantum description of the particles. The quantum development is at least as predictable as the classical motion, but it describes wave functions that cannot easily be expressed in ordinary language. In double-slit experiments, electrons fired singly through a double-slit apparatus at a distant screen do not arrive at a single point, nor do they arrive in a scattered pattern analogous to bullets fired by a fixed gun at a distant target. Instead, they arrive in varying concentrations at widely separated points, and the distribution of their hits can be calculated reliably. In that sense the behavior of the electrons in this apparatus is deterministic, but there is no way, without the ridiculously large body of knowledge that would allow a quantum description of the whole experiment, to predict where in the resulting interference pattern an individual electron will make its contribution.

Some people have argued that in addition to the conditions humans can observe and the rules they can deduce there are hidden factors or hidden variables that determine absolutely in which order electrons reach the screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically determinative way. Actually, they proceed in an absolutely determinative way. Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions that would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated

So there you have it.. there have actually been experiments performed to see what exactly the strange results of quantum physics mean.. maybe we just don't have all the data? It doesn't seem like this is the case.

If you've never studied any physics, quantum or not, it will be hard to wrap your head around these ideas.
 
5cats said:
You (or whomever wrote that stuff origionally) are confusing "perfection" with "infallability" two entirely different things. Like my response in the "Kumbaya" thread, God also includes "bad" things, but that doesn't make Him any less perfect. In theory.
Not confusing anything - in fact this is from a very old text that wanted just to show a specific aspect or God. But that's philosophy, not theology, neither logic.

I don't like to post any kind of theological view, although I can assure you I know them quite well. What I wanted to show is that logic is a very poor weapon for this discussion - and your argument about a difference in some terms isn't showing anything, even theologically, since you focus only on the start and not on the effect. I wonder why it is so difficult to accept the easy statement that logic isn't enough by herself for this kind of conversation. For example, all your text is BELIEFS, which is just an extremely valid way to persuade yourself but has no persuative value for others. That doesn't make belief useless, of course - even mathematics have their axioms (statements that are believed to be true without a proof).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom