Scientists Find Evidence of Machine Learning

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,595
You were beaten to this idea by over a hundred years. Then we found out we don't live in a deterministic universe. Too bad so sad. Enjoy your existence as an amalgamation of quantum probability distributions.

Yes, but how close would you get to creating a universe or life or even stars? Maybe not OUR universe, but a simulation of A universe. And, if 'life' was created, would it be considered 'alive' since it was just a simulation?
 

AliceCooper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
1,476
I hope it's not something with a lot of pepper in it. I've never been a pepper fan and I think I'd taste better with a rub that has cumin and garlic. I hope my kitty takes that into consideration.

Better make a note to leave out the pepper haha :D. Yum garlic :).
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
The biggest problem with doing that is each particle would need it's own memory space to store it's parameters... which would be made of many more particles than the particle for which the data being stored belongs. So in order to store details of every single particle in the universe, you would need many more times the number of existing particles to do it. That doesn't even begin to account for particles that no longer exist or have yet to be created.

It would not be stored that way. It would be stored in a form which is effectively the same as the original. While I am aware of the paradox effect of such a design, I am also aware that some quantum physics theories make it possible to store a Universe within a Universe. The storage medium itself would therefore show up as a blank spot within itself. When you have that zero disposition spot, then you will know that it all adds up.

More importantly, it will prove that everything that has ever happened, and everything that will ever happen, in this Universe, was determined at the crisis-point just before the big-bang. In other words: logic, fate or luck are the same thing. Of course, anyone in possessing such a device will have to be completely incorruptible, as they will be at the hand of God, a true prophet.
 
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
2,062
Yes, but how close would you get to creating a universe or life or even stars? Maybe not OUR universe, but a simulation of A universe. And, if 'life' was created, would it be considered 'alive' since it was just a simulation?

Computationally simulating the birth and life cycle of a star or even a universe is well within the realm of possibility. Determining based upon measurement the previous or future state of any matter existing in an actual universe (ours included) is impossible.

Alternatively, "There is no spoon".
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,595
Computationally simulating the birth and life cycle of a star or even a universe is well within the realm of possibility. Determining based upon measurement the previous or future state of any matter existing in an actual universe (ours included) is impossible.

Alternatively, "There is no spoon".

Yes, I agree that you cannot create an existing universe. But, you can create a universe. Definitely not as large as ours, though, but on a much smaller scale.
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
tumblr_lpzmbavkPv1qzx3jto1_500-e1313485902633.jpg


I think he hasn't found her because her name isn't spelled correctly.
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
The biggest problem with doing that is each particle would need it's own memory space to store it's parameters... which would be made of many more particles than the particle for which the data being stored belongs. So in order to store details of every single particle in the universe, you would need many more times the number of existing particles to do it. That doesn't even begin to account for particles that no longer exist or have yet to be created.

We could find such a supply of mass-storage by taking advantage of the varying state of a quantum bit which exists throughout the infinite number of parallel Universes. I reckon that we would only need to reserve about 1cm3 of matter. Of course, I would have to come to some understanding with the other versions of myself that we are going to be simulating this version of the Universe with it. We would have to be careful not to mess up something else over there too, but if I am correct all of the other version of me would have figured this out too. They could share the data, but it must be used for this Universe (Skyrim game included of course).

(BTW: I bet that am the first person ever to have an argument with themselves in a parallel Universe)
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
With current technology, it should be possible to create a useful representation of our current Universe. (In actual fact we already are. It is how our brains work.) In the computer representation, you would not initially need to store information right down to every atom on everything. You would store the bulk of it as a bunch of blob like estimated sense of masses at distances from each other, gradually increasing to necessary LOD whenever the tolerance of resistance reaches its natural crisis point. Out of this, a more accurate representation would evolve, over time. Interestingly, this is the basis for a profile based search engine algorithm. Logically, as well as the way that your mind works, it is also the way that the Internet actually works. It will grow like a tree of life, if you like.

Universally, there are no such things as error and chance. Error and chance are simply conditions which come out of not know exactly what will come next as a result of not being in possession of enough of the plot so as to be able to operation within acceptable tolerances.
 
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
2,062
Yes, I agree that you cannot create an existing universe. But, you can create a universe. Definitely not as large as ours, though, but on a much smaller scale.

I'm just making the point that it's out of the realm of possibility to model a physical system beyond certain fundamental limits. There is inherent uncertainty present in every construct of our universe. It was a long held belief in a deterministic universe that inspired Einstein to famously quip, "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." The quantum mechanical revolution revealed the opposite to be true.
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
Maybe god shitted out several turd nuggets and stuffed them in a bag... like on that one scene from Men In Black. So our universe is just one shit pebble amongst many others as God saves them from dehydration.
 

WaltC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,129
Zarathustra[H];1038873562 said:
Agreed.


This is really not that much more impressive than regular web page search engine indexing.

Yes, computers are not conscious, sentient, or alive, and therefore have exactly the same learning capacity as a rock in your driveway or a light switch on your wall. But, it's good PR for Google because Google knows:

"The masses will believe anything."

What would be interesting is teaching a cat how to recognize a computer. Now *that* would be impressive...;)
 

BinarySynapse

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
15,103
We could find such a supply of mass-storage by taking advantage of the varying state of a quantum bit which exists throughout the infinite number of parallel Universes. I reckon that we would only need to reserve about 1cm3 of matter. Of course, I would have to come to some understanding with the other versions of myself that we are going to be simulating this version of the Universe with it. We would have to be careful not to mess up something else over there too, but if I am correct all of the other version of me would have figured this out too. They could share the data, but it must be used for this Universe (Skyrim game included of course).

(BTW: I bet that am the first person ever to have an argument with themselves in a parallel Universe)

By communicating other universes (assuming such universes don't already have an affect on this one), then you are creating a situation where you would need to also track all the particles in all the other universes communicated with in order to see how ours will be affected by the particles they send to us (and vice versa).
 

cbutters

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
514
I have been working on a better idea. The idea is to simulate the entire Universe by plotting the path of every particle in it since the beginning. You would be able to browse back and fore to any point in time to see what was, or is, or will be, there. It would be like Google Earth, but much better.

May I ask how exactly you have been "working on" this? Like others have pointed out, you can't simulate the entire universe using a computer because that computer would need more particles to create such a computer than is physically possible. However, I am thinking that you are actually talking about creating a "model" of the entire universe? which would be possible, I'm just not sure if you are talking about modeling actual particles on a literal and grand scale, or if you are talking more a bout a universe simulator, or a model of the universe, or you may be even just talking about creating some neat software that attempts to visualize for humans something like google earth, but with a dimension of time added so you could go backwards and forwards and see how things change.... kindof like this model for illustrating scale http://htwins.net/scale2/ except instead of illustrating scale, you would illustrate time.
 
Top