because translating a solution of a NP-complete problem to a solution of any other NP problem is itself O(some polynomial of n)
Are you sure about that? I thought the idea was to translate instances of the more difficult problems into instances of the easier problems (and then to use the solution you already have for the easier problems). Also, a solution is by definition generic--otherwise it wouldn't be much of a solution. And, it doesn't really matter how much time it takes to 'translate a solution' because if it truly is a solution, you should only have to do it once.
... that the simulation of all possible abiogenesis circumstances is out of the reach of the computational resources of the universe, then [macro-] evolution is itself falsifiable.
Oops, I meant 'not falsifiable' here (but you probably gathered that).
I do think there's another big part of ID that you're missing--the information theory aspect of it. There are numerous fields devoted to detecting the activity of intelligent agents: cryptography, forensic science, criminal justice, SETI, actuarial/statistics. The mathematics for these fields are quite developed. Why does it bother you that ID would seek to do the same?
Then also there's the 'problem of demarcation'. If you really think that the simulation of all possible abiogenesis circumstances is out of the reach of the computational resources of the universe, then [macro-] evolution is itself falsifiable. The practice of speculation about origins is very much a historical science (and thus outside the realm of verification). Philosophers of science have given up hope of ever solving the demarcation problem. Whatever criteria you choose will either exclude both ID *and* evolution or include them both (and everything else [bogus]).
I think most ID theorists have a problem with abiogenesis and not evolution itself.
So, I am thinking of running the simulation at the much lower-level than Darwin was speaking of there (i.e., at the level of some blob of goo which just happens to be self-replicating--a la von Neuman's universal constructor but with organic components). The UC had a couple hundred moving parts (and that in a completely artificial [and thus simpler] world). Certainly a real UC would have many more parts.
I know that proving that such an artificial contraption is irreducibly complex would not disprove evolution, but it sure would be convincing. And, in time, we could classify many different instances of such self-replicators and prove that each class is also irreducibly complex and then merely prove that all such classes have been covered.
However, all of modern science assumes that many physical constants do not change so we could codify the physical constraints of this system as we know it (and be completely orthodox with respect to modern science). However, there would obviously be a problem for the proofs above if any one of such constants has not truly been constant forever (as we could not simulate the true primordial environment). If such proofs were provided, then I suspect you would see a dramatic shift in what is considered the mainstream view of constancy (as most evolutionists based their science on their philosophy and bend the data and their theories however they must to escape the obvious implications of such an ordered universe).
Not exactly. Given a deterministic process (i.e., natural selection) and the finished product (i.e., the organ) along with its genetic material and enough computation time, we can explore every possible back-trace through the set of possible mutations. It is only a matter of time before our supercomputers prove that a particular organ could not possibly have 'evolved'.
Essentially reverse debugging (or should I say debunking) evolution.
Actually, no. ID says that there does indeed exist certain "complex organs which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications".
"Previous versions had no set upper limit, though the maximum amount of material that could be held in a single row was approximately 2GB. This upper limit has been eliminated."
Poor writing. I think you meant to say that they exchanged one type of upper limit for another.
Firstly, I doubt that a search algorithm would be the 'one true way' to question all Jeopardy! answers (and I think the rules of Jeopardy! are such that any non-trivial question will be accepted if it truly matches the answer given).
Secondly, [even if it were] the human brain is able to achieve this (presumably via some sort of holographic/striped storage) so it is possible in theory to do this in computers as well (assuming that there is no metaphysical explanation for the brain's capabilities)--i.e., essentially trading space for speed (with lots of multi-level [and perhaps fuzzy] indices).
Humans and computers alike are limited by Godel's Incompleteness so I just don't think that is a significant factor here.
In other words, the halting problem is only one of many decision problems (most of which are decidable [and in much less time than actually finding solutions to their counterparts in np-complete]).
The halting problem would only come into play for a very specific class of queries (and those are surely not the sort of queries Jeopardy! typically involves). Doesn't this come down to what information you have in cache and what you have to look up (and how long it is projected to take to look it up)?
I don't believe anyone was suggesting blindly buzzing in but rather calculating that you can calculate or finish calculating the correct question in 5 secs or less (to a high degree of confidence). A highly-parallel computer (read: multi-core) should be able to devote some number of threads of execution to actually calculating the answer and some other number to the calculation of the feasibility of calculating the right answer (and/or monitoring the other threads).
Umm, you're doing it wrong. Snowboards have bindings which you're supposed to attach to your boots. And, if that isn't enough, they also have a safety cord to attach to something secure (like one of the bootlaces).
That may be true. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' though. Up until now, MS has had it easy sitting on these revenue streams. That, however, doesn't mean that they do not see or care about the future (e.g., MS Research invents a *lot* of cool projects).
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure to use a botnet to grab the results from many different IPs and forward them to you so they can't shut you down.
BTW, I think that these super [quantum] computers could certainly explore the number of permutations that we're talking about in a reasonable amount of time: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/quantum-computer-hydrogen-simulation/
As I said, it's only a 'matter of time' (i.e., until we have built substantial quantum computers) before evolution is debunked.
because translating a solution of a NP-complete problem to a solution of any other NP problem is itself O(some polynomial of n)
Are you sure about that? I thought the idea was to translate instances of the more difficult problems into instances of the easier problems (and then to use the solution you already have for the easier problems). Also, a solution is by definition generic--otherwise it wouldn't be much of a solution. And, it doesn't really matter how much time it takes to 'translate a solution' because if it truly is a solution, you should only have to do it once.
You're joking right? His statement was the translation.
... that the simulation of all possible abiogenesis circumstances is out of the reach of the computational resources of the universe, then [macro-] evolution is itself falsifiable.
Oops, I meant 'not falsifiable' here (but you probably gathered that).
I do think there's another big part of ID that you're missing--the information theory aspect of it. There are numerous fields devoted to detecting the activity of intelligent agents: cryptography, forensic science, criminal justice, SETI, actuarial/statistics. The mathematics for these fields are quite developed. Why does it bother you that ID would seek to do the same?
Then also there's the 'problem of demarcation'. If you really think that the simulation of all possible abiogenesis circumstances is out of the reach of the computational resources of the universe, then [macro-] evolution is itself falsifiable. The practice of speculation about origins is very much a historical science (and thus outside the realm of verification). Philosophers of science have given up hope of ever solving the demarcation problem. Whatever criteria you choose will either exclude both ID *and* evolution or include them both (and everything else [bogus]).
I think most ID theorists have a problem with abiogenesis and not evolution itself.
So, I am thinking of running the simulation at the much lower-level than Darwin was speaking of there (i.e., at the level of some blob of goo which just happens to be self-replicating--a la von Neuman's universal constructor but with organic components). The UC had a couple hundred moving parts (and that in a completely artificial [and thus simpler] world). Certainly a real UC would have many more parts.
I know that proving that such an artificial contraption is irreducibly complex would not disprove evolution, but it sure would be convincing. And, in time, we could classify many different instances of such self-replicators and prove that each class is also irreducibly complex and then merely prove that all such classes have been covered.
However, all of modern science assumes that many physical constants do not change so we could codify the physical constraints of this system as we know it (and be completely orthodox with respect to modern science). However, there would obviously be a problem for the proofs above if any one of such constants has not truly been constant forever (as we could not simulate the true primordial environment). If such proofs were provided, then I suspect you would see a dramatic shift in what is considered the mainstream view of constancy (as most evolutionists based their science on their philosophy and bend the data and their theories however they must to escape the obvious implications of such an ordered universe).
Not exactly. Given a deterministic process (i.e., natural selection) and the finished product (i.e., the organ) along with its genetic material and enough computation time, we can explore every possible back-trace through the set of possible mutations. It is only a matter of time before our supercomputers prove that a particular organ could not possibly have 'evolved'.
Essentially reverse debugging (or should I say debunking) evolution.
Actually, no. ID says that there does indeed exist certain "complex organs which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications".
"Previous versions had no set upper limit, though the maximum amount of material that could be held in a single row was approximately 2GB. This upper limit has been eliminated."
Poor writing. I think you meant to say that they exchanged one type of upper limit for another.
No, it merely encourages future crackers to release their work [pseud-] anonymously (which is something they should be doing anyway).
Firstly, I doubt that a search algorithm would be the 'one true way' to question all Jeopardy! answers (and I think the rules of Jeopardy! are such that any non-trivial question will be accepted if it truly matches the answer given).
Secondly, [even if it were] the human brain is able to achieve this (presumably via some sort of holographic/striped storage) so it is possible in theory to do this in computers as well (assuming that there is no metaphysical explanation for the brain's capabilities)--i.e., essentially trading space for speed (with lots of multi-level [and perhaps fuzzy] indices).
Humans and computers alike are limited by Godel's Incompleteness so I just don't think that is a significant factor here.
In other words, the halting problem is only one of many decision problems (most of which are decidable [and in much less time than actually finding solutions to their counterparts in np-complete]).
The halting problem would only come into play for a very specific class of queries (and those are surely not the sort of queries Jeopardy! typically involves). Doesn't this come down to what information you have in cache and what you have to look up (and how long it is projected to take to look it up)?
Pascal's wager is merely another form of Anslem's proof.
I don't believe anyone was suggesting blindly buzzing in but rather calculating that you can calculate or finish calculating the correct question in 5 secs or less (to a high degree of confidence). A highly-parallel computer (read: multi-core) should be able to devote some number of threads of execution to actually calculating the answer and some other number to the calculation of the feasibility of calculating the right answer (and/or monitoring the other threads).
Unless we're talking about live coding
Social engineers need not apply.
It is most surely a coincidence.
I'd be interested in seeing the path from inorganic matter to A if you hear of one.
Exceptional sounds better than special anyway but they are essentially synonyms no?
Got kinect on the brain, huh?
Umm, you're doing it wrong. Snowboards have bindings which you're supposed to attach to your boots. And, if that isn't enough, they also have a safety cord to attach to something secure (like one of the bootlaces).
That may be true. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' though. Up until now, MS has had it easy sitting on these revenue streams. That, however, doesn't mean that they do not see or care about the future (e.g., MS Research invents a *lot* of cool projects).
Umm, isn't this the same thing Bill Gates has been saying for the last decade or more?