Discussion Of Feedback Loops, Ai, Etc

[LaurieAG]

Moderation note: the first 6 posts of this thread were moved from the thread "Proof of My Fundamental Equation" because they are about different topics.

 

Hi Qfwfq,

 

If one does do it in such a case, finding unexpected discrepancies, it is epistemologically akin to getting the Michelson Morley results, from which a mathematician can deduce the Minkowskian spacetime geometry. Mind, Newton was smart but in his day they hadn't had the idea of alternative geometries, despite centuries of research over Euclid's fifth; this is the only reason why even if he had known the M&M results he might not have done such a neat job as Minkowsi. He'd have done a least as well as the young hippie though.

 

Maybe if the hippy had a working feedback loop he might have decided otherwise.

 

 

1. This a basic graphical representation of an optical feedback loop.

 

 

2. This is a graphical representation of a Lorenzian loop.

 

 

3. This is the equipment for a feedback loop.

 

 

4. This is a graphical representation of a Reimann sphere.

 

 

5. This is a screen capture (Poincare section) captured from the feedback loop using 1 mirror.

 

 

6. This why they look very similar but not quite.

[joekgamer]

A while back I was doing some reseacrch into how AIs work. The major problem I came across was the difficulty of reducing input to data. It required either using a number system that is larger than base-2 (binary), so that computer data would go from 1101101111100101... to 2573245376725735464... or something similar, or having a database larder than all the computers in the world combined. (Please don't ask me to cite sources. I researched this quite a while ago.)

 

What you are doing seems, if not completely the same, to share idea(s) that are vaugely similar:

 

There is no such thing as “Dick's formalism”. I have never presented my fundamental equation as a formal attack on any problem. It is rather a solution to a very important question. What I have asserted is that any “valid” explanation must yield expectations which can be represented as solutions to that equation! (Where “valid” is defined to be “there exists no known data which in any way contradicts that explanation”.) One thing that is very significant. That result is proved without in any way making any assumption that the consequences of that explanation have been actually fully determined. That is probably the single most important issue everyone overlooks.

It seems that you are trying to change subjective/unsystematic knowledge into objective/systematic knowledge (or at least something similar), like I was trying to find out how to do. However, you seem to take it a step further into causality with the 'solutions to the equation' part of the quote above by trying to explain the concept of all information producing other information. This can be simply (if somewhat innacuratly) expressed by the phrase, "Mathless Equations". If this is taken to its logical conclusion, then it says that, if you have perfect information about the first event in the universe, then it should be possible to extrapolate, using cause/effect relations, every single event in history. Of course, this is impossible in reality due to the Uncertainty Principle, and also practically impossible, for rather obvious reasons, but it is compltely resonable as a theoretical concept.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Polymath,

 

A while back I was doing some reseacrch into how AIs work. The major problem I came across was the difficulty of reducing input to data. It required either using a number system that is larger than base-2 (binary), so that computer data would go from 1101101111100101... to 2573245376725735464... or something similar, or having a database larder than all the computers in the world combined. (Please don't ask me to cite sources. I researched this quite a while ago.)

 

One thing that might surprise you is that a computer the size of a finite universe would not have enough space to store the fraction 1/3 (0.333 recurring) while one based on an infinte universe could.

 

If you can find a good textbook on microprocessors that includes assembly language you can see that the input is translated into binary, manipulated and then converted back. The Dean of science where I received my degree wrote the assembly language interpreter (in Pascal) we used and taught the microprocessors course. We used the interpreter to generate the machine code to multiply 2 x 2 digit numbers, including I/O, in 256 bytes and typed it in for testing/assessment. The multiplication process would probably blow your mind. What you describe is actually the translation of the end binary result into 7 segment display (or the old, pre truetype font mappings which do a similar thing) output. Thats why the ASCII character set was limited in DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII

 

I suppose I was lucky to study under such a talented Dean.

 

BTW, I don't actually disagree with field theory etc, what I do disagree with is using a field theory to model a continuum or a universe. If you have ever studied the proof from first principles of the charge on a point at a distance from a wire you'd probably realise the same thing.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Polymath,

 

This can be simply (if somewhat innacuratly) expressed by the phrase, "Mathless Equations". If this is taken to its logical conclusion, then it says that, if you have perfect information about the first event in the universe, then it should be possible to extrapolate, using cause/effect relations, every single event in history. Of course, this is impossible in reality due to the Uncertainty Principle, and also practically impossible, for rather obvious reasons, but it is compltely resonable as a theoretical concept.

 

So you have extremely strong faith in the BB due to reasonable uncertainty?

 

Have you read Homer's 'Odyssey'?

 

At the beginning of the 19th year, from when Odysseus left for the Trojan war, his wifes Suitors had 95% confidence that Odysseus would not return by the beginning of the twentieth year.

[joekgamer]

So you have extremely strong faith in the BB due to reasonable uncertainty?

What does this mean? If it means, "Do I treat the Big Bang as credible due to the relatively evidence-less state of other theories?", then yes, that is true.

 

If means something else, then could you please clarify?

[LaurieAG]

Hi Polymath,

 

Of course, this is impossible in reality due to the Uncertainty Principle, and also practically impossible, for rather obvious reasons, but it is compltely resonable as a theoretical concept.

 

Have you ever considered that the uncertainty principle could only be applicable to uncertain principles?

 

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

 

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.

 

Can you comprehend non quantum reality, for rather obvious reasons?