Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[5cats]

What do the non-localiy experiments have to do with the double-slit experiments? NOTHING!!!!!!!
You stated, and I quote you, that the double slit results "defies all understanding"

The double slit experiment I'm refering to is the one-at-a-time photon one, in which the single photon acts as if it were interacting with other photons, like the 'classic' double slit which can be done with water.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit

Pay close attention to the lower right corner of this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YoungsDoubleSlit.png#file

Dusty your ignorance is exceeded only by your hostility, and possibly your ego.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

The double slit experiment I'm refering to is the one-at-a-time photon one, in which the single photon acts as if it were interacting with other photons, like the 'classic' double slit which can be done with water.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit

Pay close attention to the lower right corner of this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YoungsDoubleSlit.png#file

Dusty your ignorance is exceeded only by your hostility, and possibly your ego.

Umm, nothing I said had anything to do with a multi-photon (or electron) diouble-slit experiment. Period.

Stop dodging the issue.

Just because it doesnt work in the 'classical' newtonian view of a particle, that doesnt mean it 'defies all understanding' - we understand it quite well - its one of the greatest theories humanity has ever concieved - beautiful in its simplicity. This one simple theory, QED, details all the currently observed phenomenon regarding the property of matter that we call charge.

The double-slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with non-determinism. At one time (until th 1920's) the results were a 'paradox' - bringing terms into the scientific jargon such as 'wave-particle duality' - because at the time a 'particle' was considered to behave in a classic newtonian sense.

Now we presume that a particle will behave exactly as Feynman describes.

Watch the entire lecture series. Its all about the same subject. The subject you are trying to argue about. The photon still gets emitted. It still gets obsorbed. We have a rigorous yet simple mathematical system, Quantum Electrodynamics, which is used on a daily basis.

And to top it all off, doesnt the double-slit experiment work every time? Isn't there always an interference pattern? How is that not deterministic? Once you get over the awe of their being an interference pattern, just as Feynman had, you will realize that there is no reason to believe that its a nondeterministic (stochastic) process. Its a process that can be described mathematically and he was one of the ones that did it.

He didnt invent some crazy math to do it either. Complex number theory was developed independently long before Feynman. The persuit of the square root of -1.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Ever heard of soulmates? Some people do believe that one soul can occupy two bodies. But my point was, regardless of this or other experiments and their results, people will believe despite evidence.

Well of course people will always believe anything, but it doesn't matter, because actually belief is pretty insignificant.
The point of the experiment was to find a way to yield more hard data on the question of freewill and "souls". After that, it doesn't really matter what people "believe" or not, it's a personal matter. However, as I stated, the chances of actually being able to perform such an experiment seem very low - at least for now.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

A good leader knows when to be a follower. When to accept ideas of others in the team and give proper credit boosting morale and fostering a positive atmosphere. I think I can do that.
Whether employers fall for that, I'll find out when I start sending applications
I sincerely believe what I said though.

A good leader is someone who crushes and terrorizes his subordinates, take credit for their good ideas, and blame them for his own bad ideas. He is greedy, sneaky, ruthless, and he has no friends - only competitors. Boy, you're never gonna make a corporate career with this kind of attitude... Nevermind politics.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Oh at least! Our grandchildren will still be at it! 5CatsIV and Brighteye Jr Jr Jr,

Yeah, I just hope I won't be Napoleon III, because he was really lousy...

 

[Brighteye]

Hello again everyone. I certainly hope any descendants of mine don't use the term 'junior'.

I am not a solipsist, but my remarks were probably unclear. When I said we should assume nothing, I meant that I don't think we should assume hypotheses are true unless they have been tested. If something is untestable and unproven, I'm comfortable not assuming a conclusion about it.

I assume that I will hit the ground if I jump off a building, because that's been tested. I don't assume that identical brains will behave identically, or that science can make AI identical to human intelligence, because those things have not yet been tested or proven.

I don't know why Napoleon thinks that loving animals has anything to do with solipsism.
Our theory of the world is untestable and unproven. We might all be sitting in boxes with our sensory input fed to us by a computer. If you refuse to assume a conclusion about this then surely you're paralysed by doubt? I assume that the world is real, even though I recognise the possibility of it not being real.
My point works from a principle. This principle is something that can be tested in one situation and applied to another. We have not tested the principle in the situation of my thought experiment. We can apply it to my thought experiment because we do not have to test a principle in every situation for us to assume it's true. I press a key on the keyboard and I assume a letter will appear on the screen, even though I haven't tested that specific situation yet. The next letter I press will be the same; I apply a rule, even though I haven't tested it.
Once more, it's not a hypothesis. It's a demonstration of an inconsistency, using a theoretical example.
We have not yet tested whether when you jump off a tall building you will die. We know other people do, but not you. You are applying a principle that has not yet been tested.

We'll agree to disagree I think.

The seemingly inevitable conclusion of any argument.

The existence of souls is untestable. Therefore principles of science cannot be used to tell us whether souls are relevant to making AI or anything else.

The principles of science are testable, and in every test they are not disproven. If some proposition about souls conflicts with the principles of science then they are entirely relevant to a discussion about souls. I choose to disbelieve the proposition about souls. Others in this thread choose to ignore the principles of science. The principles of science are only doubtable by some sort of universal doubt of the type a solipsist has.

Principles of science are not inconsistent with the existence of souls. Souls exist or don't exist outside the realm of science, because their existence cannot be scientifically tested. Science doesn't tell us anything about souls. Science can't prove that invisible monkeys don't pull some apples off trees in exactly the same manner as gravity pulls others.

Indeed; but in this hypothesis you are adding to the principles of science, and making the effect of the invisible monkeys identical to the effect that science expects to observe. You are not proposing a contradiction with the principles of science. The proposition that AI will never be intelligent because it will never have a soul conflicts with scientific principles. My thought experiment was supposed to demonstrate this conflict, and, because I assumed that people would give the principles of science more credence than subjective belief, prove (as far as anything can be proven) that the proposition about souls and AI was wrong.

Because no one has proven that intelligence only comes from physical sources governed by causality, the theory of causality is not inconsistent with the idea that souls may create intelligence.

This is true. Souls may cause intelligence. If they do, then they will cause intelligence in a computer that has the appropriate hardware/software for intelligence. That is the interpretation that is consistent with causality.

I assume causality applies in my daily life and in scientific experiments. I don't assume causality applies to souls. And I don't assume that causality explains intelligence because no one has proven that intelligence can only come from physical things governed by causality or proven that human intelligence can be replicated by humans.

Personally, when we start making AI identical to human intelligence then I will assume that your conclusion is correct, even though "universal doubt" would still suggest that it could be false.

If you don't assume causality applies to souls then the reverse is also true (souls do not 'apply' to causality), because causality is a closed system. Anything that is not within causality is outside of it; causality has sufficient inputs within itself, and postulating an influence of souls within causality is the same as saying that various causes that should act on the brain are not actually not having an effect because the soul is having that effect. Thus you break the closed cycle of cause and effect, contradicting the nature of causality. Either souls are part of causality or not; causality is, however, a closed cycle of cause and effect, and to be part of it means having/being both cause and effect, not just one of them.
Science can show that those causes within the brain do have an effect, and therefore science is relevant to this particular discussion about souls.

Your last paragraph makes it look as though we agree now (as much as we ever will). This is all tying up loose ends for clarity (and 5tiggers), and in the hope that all those people who have claimed that we've had a confusing discussion will recant and realise that it's actually quite simple.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

um, i thought this thread was about making a better AI?

 

[Pawel]

We have a rigorous yet simple mathematical system, Quantum Electrodynamics, which is used on a daily basis.

Well, it is not all that simple. t'Hooft got the Nobel prize just for showing that the math (renormalization) of theories like QED made sense.

Once you get over the awe of their being an interference pattern, just as Feynman had, you will realize that there is no reason to believe that its a nondeterministic (stochastic) process. Its a process that can be described mathematically and he was one of the ones that did it.

Feynman was a great phycists, but the interference you see in a double-slit experiment can be well described without invoking QED. It follows from the fact that the wave function has a phase. When adding contributions that have travelled along different paths, or though a different materials (potentials), the difference in phase will create interference. This is typical wave behavior. But each particle will clearly interact at a specific point, having gone through either one or the other of the two slits. If you cover one of the slits, the interference pattern will disappear. The idea is thus that the classical picture is incomplete since the particle going though one of the slits has to 'know' if the other one was open.

This is, however, not related to determinism in a different way than the spin experiment (Stern-Gerlach) that I described a few posts ago. That one just illustrates the concept in a clearer way since the spin part of the wave function can be easily separated from its space part. And Feynman did not believe in determinism.

 

[Brighteye]

um, i thought this thread was about making a better AI?

Could deep blue play a better AI?
Can we make a really good AI?
Can AI ever actually be intelligent?
Do souls cause intelligence
Do souls also cause free will
Will souls cause intelligence (and free will) in AI?
Is causality incompatible with humans having intelligence and free will but AI not?
Is causality a good principle?
Has quantum physics disproven causality?

See, it all makes sense if you follow the lines of thought.

 

[dbergan]

New thread for the discussion of AI, Souls, Free Will, Logic, Self-awareness

I worked out a more detailed essay on why humans are part supernatural, and am planning 2 more... in case you're interested...

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Feynman was a great phycists, but the interference you see in a double-slit experiment can be well described without invoking QED. It follows from the fact that the wave function has a phase.

Wave functions don't describe all the phenomena we observe, such as energy comming is discrete lumps.

These theories don't work:

(A) A particle is a lump of matter that behaves in a newtonian laws of motion sense.

(B) A particle is a wave.

We can show by observation that these simply arent true. QED satisfies observation, while both (A) and (B) only aplies to special cases. Neither (A) nor (B) is a complete theory.

So 5cats arguement for non-determinism, rephrased to get his definition into play: A particle is a lump of matter (A) that behaves in a newtonian sense, and because of experiment X and observation (B) we know that the universe must be non-deterministic.

The logic doesnt follow. He begins with a premise proven to be false.

The observed interference pattern is not suprising. Its predicted by theory.

Not by theory (A).
Not by theory (B).

Predicted by Quantum Electrodynamics.

There is no other theory of charge other than QED that can boast satisfying all the observed properties while having a framework that is anywhere near as simple (Occams Razor.)

For him to argue that the two-slit experiment proves nondeterminism, he must argue that QED is non-deterministic. He didn't do that. He just declared that the two slit experiment proves the universe is non-deterministic. The experts don't agree with him.

In another post that I did not respond to, he noted that Bell's inequality proved nondeterminism. That is true in so much as you first must accept the two primary propositions: (A) All interactions are local and (B) There is a reality that exists even when we are not looking.

Bells inequality shows that QED is incomplete. (A) or (B) must not hold in all cases (actualy theres a 3rd option.. that Logic is incomplete.. but thats a whole different can of soup)

Wanna know more?

Now we get to the interpretations!

Because of Bells inequality (which has been confirmed by observation) the experts have devised interpretations to make sense out of it. Why? Because we can only observe events. An event is required to make an observation.

The debate is still out over which (if any!) of the current interpretations is best. Some of the interpretations allow for determinism, and some do not. Thats it. Thats the limit of knowledge on the subject.


5cats is always declaring facts rather than finding facts. Sometimes his "facts" are right (lucky guess?) and sometimes they are proven false.

I was trying to let him off easy.

When adding contributions that have travelled along different paths, or though a different materials (potentials), the difference in phase will create interference. This is typical wave behavior. But each particle will clearly interact at a specific point, having gone through either one or the other of the two slits. If you cover one of the slits, the interference pattern will disappear. The idea is thus that the classical picture is incomplete since the particle going though one of the slits has to 'know' if the other one was open.

Yeah.. no kidding!

and Feynman did not believe in determinism.

Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is completely deterministic (this is super-deterministic if such an idea exists.. the destination of the particle is known priori by the particles emitter and the absorber) WTH are you talking about? You must be refering to one of his possibly non-deterministic theories such as Feynman Propogation?

All these alternatives.. how do you guys pick only one while the experts cannot decide?

 

[Pawel]

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with QED. However, science has progessed since the days of Feynman. Electromagnetic and weak interactions are now described in a unified way by electro-weak theory. Together with QCD, the theory of strong interactions, they form the standard model.

My point was just that the idea of the double-slit experiment could be unerstood rather well with basic quantum mechanics. The concepts of determinism and locality don't really change in quantum field theory.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

i suggest everyone here watch the matrix.

 

[5cats]

Just because it doesnt work in the 'classical' newtonian view of a particle, that doesnt mean it 'defies all understanding' - we understand it quite well -.

So, you can explain how a photon interferes with itself? How it knows if the other slit is open or not? This I gotta see...

So 5cats arguement for non-determinism, rephrased to get his definition into play: A particle is a lump of matter (A) that behaves in a newtonian sense, and because of experiment X and observation (B) we know that the universe must be non-deterministic.

Deliberatly mis-stating my arguement doesn't make it (the origional arguement) incorrect.

My arguement is, and has been all along, and has remained consistant:

There are forces at work in our universe which we do not yet understand.

How does the double slit express this?
1) light is made of partices (Feynman proves this)
2) double-slit shows non-partice results (wave results)
3) therefor there's something more to be learned, eh?

And QED, which I am not familiar with, I'm certain doesn't explain the aspect Pawel brought up:

But each particle will clearly interact at a specific point, having gone through either one or the other of the two slits. If you cover one of the slits, the interference pattern will disappear. The idea is thus that the classical picture is incomplete since the particle going though one of the slits has to 'know' if the other one was open.

So 5cats arguement for non-determinism, rephrased to get his definition into play: A particle is a lump of matter (A) that behaves in a newtonian sense, and because of experiment X and observation (B) we know that the universe must be non-deterministic.

Perhaps if you don't understand the double-slit experiment AT ALL this might be YOUR conclusion. How do I get to the conclusion of non-determinism, in a logical fashion I might add? Simple:
If we accept that we don't know everything, if there's the probability that other forces exist, we cannot conclude that the whole universe is "deterministic". We CAN conclude that there's a lot of things which are deterministic, but to rule out non-determinism, for no reason at all, is highly illogical! NOTE: it's been accepted thus far that some things are truely random. Random and determinism simply do not get along. To assume ALL new discoveries will be deterministic in form (I almost said 'nature'! ) when we've already accepted the idea of non-determinism in at least one case, is foolish.

In another post that I did not respond to, he noted that Bell's inequality proved nondeterminism.

You mean me? I don't recall that...

5cats is always declaring facts rather than finding facts. Sometimes his "facts" are right (lucky guess?) and sometimes they are proven false.

Gee, thanks! There can be no 'guess' because it's all pre-determined please try to remain consistant in your arguement But I suppose you sleep better believing that I'm just right by a lucky guess.
Whatever the reason, I'm still right!

Edited: missed a few "/ quote"

 

[5cats]

i suggest everyone here watch the matrix.

Or play Alpha Centauri...

"we all know the senses can be decieved..."

 

[5cats]

He's going to shoot you in self-defense...!

At least he can present this thread as evidence for his insanity plea

 

[Dusty Monkey]

How does the double slit express this?
1) light is made of partices (Feynman proves this)
2) double-slit shows non-partice results (wave results)
3) therefor there's something more to be learned, eh?

Feynman doesnt prove that they are particles in the sense that you mean.

Period.

#1 and #2 are not mutualy exclusive. A particle BY DEFINITION has both properties of Newtonian particles (what you mean in #1) and Dirac waves (what you mean in #2)

I can't believe that you know anything at all on the subject because you continualy, repeatedly, make the same mistake.

Your false premise is that #1 and #2 are mutualy exclusive. They are not. Its proven by experiment.

Perhaps if you don't understand the double-slit experiment AT ALL this might be YOUR conclusion. How do I get to the conclusion of non-determinism, in a logical fashion I might add? Simple:
If we accept that we don't know everything, if there's the probability that other forces exist, we cannot conclude that the whole universe is "deterministic". We CAN conclude that there's a lot of things which are deterministic, but to rule out non-determinism, for no reason at all, is highly illogical!

AHA!

Isnt that my arguement entirely? That we simply do not know?

You have stated repeatedly, again and again, then we DO know. That there is EVIDENCE that the universe is non-dterministic. THERE IS NOT.

Infact, later in this same post you go so far as to say that we know:

NOTE: it's been accepted thus far that some things are truely random.
Random and determinism simply do not get along.

Wrong. You must pick an unjustified premise to come to the conclusion that things happen which are random. This is why there are various interpretations of quantum theory. All of them use unjustified premises. Some of the interpretations allow for nondeterminism, some do not. PERIOD.

To assume ALL new discoveries will be deterministic in form (I almost said 'nature'! ) when we've already accepted the idea of non-determinism in at least one case, is foolish.

YOU seem to have "accepted" the idea of non-determinism, science however has not.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

It appears that I am now fighting a straw-man.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

5cats is arguing that I have declared the universe to be deterministic, in order to defend his arguement that the universe is nondeterministic.

I never declared the universe to be deterministic OR nondeterministic.

If his declarations have a leg to stand on, he needs to tell the scientists all about that leg because they apparently don't know.

 

[jar2574]

I choose to disbelieve the proposition about souls. Others in this thread choose to ignore the principles of science. The principles of science are only doubtable by some sort of universal doubt of the type a solipsist has.

I don't think that I am ignoring science. I'm just emphasizing a different scientific principle. You're emphasizing causality. I'm emphasizing the basic scientific principle that a hypothesis must be tested in order to become scientifically proven. No hypothesis regarding the physical world is inevitablly true, it must be tested. Untestable hypotheses (including any hypothesis depending upon the non-existence of souls) are outside the domain of science IMO.

...I assumed that people would give the principles of science more credence than subjective belief...

(1) This is a big assumption. Most people in the world hold subjective beliefs that the principles of science cannot prove. Personal experience probably means more to those people than principles of science; a believer is not going to become an atheist due to the fact that he can't prove to others that his belief is correct.

(2) If you follow the principle of science that untested hypotheses are not scientific truths, then the principle of causality merely points towards your conclusion, but does not prove it. So we can give more credence to science than subjective belief, but still recognize the possiblity that souls create intelligence.

--------------------
Last, I have two real questions, and I understand that they demonstrate my ignorance on the subject, but I'm hoping for some honest answers. Please don't massacre me for showing my ignorance.

Brighteye says that causality is a closed system. This raises two questions:
1) How did it start? If every cause has an effect, then the system would seem to have to go back to infinity.

2) How do tiny things (quantum particles or whatever) that don't seem to operate within the normal laws of cause and effect exist within this closed causal system? How the hell do non-causal things form the building blocks for a causal system? That's pretty mind-boggling, and it's likely that I misunderstand the basics here.

 

[JerichoHill]

If we don't have free will, then our justice system isn't very just, is it?

Hence, I think its just more useful to believe in free will.