I wonder what kind of latency they're getting for the controls.
Seems like you'd want roundtrip latency to be under 50ms, which best case with speed of light transmission, line-of-sight controls and infinite transmission rate would correspond roughly to a limit of 4000 miles away for the operator... (probably much less in practice since you'd need to account for the time to send visual feedback presumably as a compressed video stream)
There is no recursion because the context is undefinable, "Who created the creator" is a question without meaning, you might as well ask "when purple the creator",
Huh? Sounds like a faith-based argument to me -> it's a slippery slope from that to talking snakes:)
So here's what I say: Consciousness cannot arise from an abstract function. Or any kind of function or mathematics or set of commands, or algorythm.
'consciousness' is an inherently **human** characteristic...the perception of it is entirely dependent upon humans
That's a pretty bold statement. My position is that the laws that govern the universe (whatever they may be), do lead to consciousness (since we're here and conscious). And I do believe that these laws (again whatever they may be) are ultimately themselves an abstract construct that form our reality (but the only difference between abstract and reality is that "physical reality" is equivalent to "perceived abstract")
I guess it ultimately depends on the definition of 'consciousness'. I see it more as the simple definition (ala Julian Jaynes), of 'capable of introspection', eg: we're not always conscious when awake.
At some point this is really purely a philosophical matter: none of it makes a difference in how we live our lives, but I somehow find the abstract very satisfying as it solves the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" without resorting to the anthropomorphic principle.
Max Tegmark recently published a book on the Mathematical Universe, which is along the same lines, though I like to differentiate "abstract" from "mathematical" (as the latter seems like an unnecessary restriction)
My problem with the simulation argument is that you then have to explain the existence of a separate universe in which the simulation is running, so it's doesn't really explain anything (recursive logic), in a way similar to monotheistic religions (A lot of it seems like wishful thinking on the part of software engineers).
The interesting part about the general abstract function concept is that the universe would automatically *have* to "exist" if it is possible for consciousness to arise from an abstract function, as the function's existence is perceived by itself.
It may all just be an abstract function (no real "creation" event per say), in which case the only reason it's not perceived as abstract as say the Mandelbrot fractal is because of consciousness being part of the function (real from the point of view of the conscious entities in the function).
In a sense, the universe was abstract until we became conscious, which funnily enough seemed to have occurred about 4000 years ago (you would think that religious folks would jump on something like this, but no, they seem to prefer sticking with their talking snakes story)
My experience is that any project is as good as the best member of the team, eg: 100 monkeys will not produce something higher quality than a single monkey, but throw a single smart dude in the mix and things will look a lot different, though the smart dude may get tired of doing all the work of 100 monkeys and may develop an attitude (he might need more than a few extra bananas to stick around)
How to compress the content *with good quality within a limited computation time* is the real challenge (otherwise, yes, you can just take a MPEG-2 encoder and stick a HEVC CABAC syntax at the end and you have a valid HEVC bitstream with good perf but crappy compression efficiency compared to H.264)
While it can be useful in pinpointing common code defects, interpreting coverity results as an absolute indicator of code quality is just retarded.
90% of coverity's defect's tend to be really false positives that would be obvious to even the average code monkey... Not sure that massaging a code base to please coverity and getting a 'high score' is really any kind of achievement and may be more an indicator that you have way too much time on your hands...
Doesn't have to be a simulation. Any abstract function that leads to consciousness would become reality for said consciousness.
In other words, there is really no difference between abstract and reality. If an abstract function that desbcribes consciousness can exist it would in fact "exist" (therefore the universe must exist).
Huh, the lapped transform is not quite "beyond" next-gen codecs like HEVC.
In fact, the [over]lapped transform is already part of the WMV9/VC-1 codec, and it didn't really have a significant impact on coding efficiency (it does tend to look more blurry than blocky at very high quantization, but both cases look like crap at these levels)
Dude, I understand the impatience/frustration due to the slow progress of physics in past 40 or so years, but if I understand you correctly, you're seriously suggesting to sit on our asses and do nothing just waiting/praying for the next Einstein to turn up ?
I'm also on the opinion that the Standard Model is a bit like curve-fitting experimental results, and it does (obviously) work with observation around the range it was designed for (and we already know it fails outside of that, but still definitely useful in practice), but the best thing we can do IMO is to push experiments further and further to try to find discrepancies which will make it easier to come up with new theories, which is exactly what is going on at the LHC and many other places around the world.
The next revolution might very well come out of a totally different field ~ personally I'm hoping that exascale computing will make it easier to test new theories (being able to accurate simulate entire organs at the molecular level could revolutionise medicine, advances in quantum chemistry could also [in]validate some theories and have plenty of practical implications).
The real problem is a lack of a common API for encoding regardless of GPU/CPU, which leads to vendor-specific implementations with varying degrees of quality.
The most efficient way to pretty much do anything is a dedicated HW block (from both perf and power point of view), so there is no question that there is value in encoding using dedicated hardware, but the software has to catch up.
I'm no mathematician, but the proof in the paper looks very solid (certainly makes sense from a coding point of view).
Though the proof is more general, it also pretty much demonstrates that factorization can't be achieved in polynomial time (thus that RSA is indeed secure).
Many image-enhancement techniques exist that do just this, and this is not really new.
In fact this proves that square pixels work just fine to transmit the information, but the image can be enhanced to a larger resolution by non-linear techniques that work better than simple [traditional] upsampling.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Funny
I wonder what kind of latency they're getting for the controls. Seems like you'd want roundtrip latency to be under 50ms, which best case with speed of light transmission, line-of-sight controls and infinite transmission rate would correspond roughly to a limit of 4000 miles away for the operator... (probably much less in practice since you'd need to account for the time to send visual feedback presumably as a compressed video stream)
There is no recursion because the context is undefinable, "Who created the creator" is a question without meaning, you might as well ask "when purple the creator",
Huh? Sounds like a faith-based argument to me -> it's a slippery slope from that to talking snakes :)
So here's what I say: Consciousness cannot arise from an abstract function. Or any kind of function or mathematics or set of commands, or algorythm.
'consciousness' is an inherently **human** characteristic...the perception of it is entirely dependent upon humans
That's a pretty bold statement. My position is that the laws that govern the universe (whatever they may be), do lead to consciousness (since we're here and conscious). And I do believe that these laws (again whatever they may be) are ultimately themselves an abstract construct that form our reality (but the only difference between abstract and reality is that "physical reality" is equivalent to "perceived abstract")
I guess it ultimately depends on the definition of 'consciousness'. I see it more as the simple definition (ala Julian Jaynes), of 'capable of introspection', eg: we're not always conscious when awake. At some point this is really purely a philosophical matter: none of it makes a difference in how we live our lives, but I somehow find the abstract very satisfying as it solves the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" without resorting to the anthropomorphic principle.
Max Tegmark recently published a book on the Mathematical Universe, which is along the same lines, though I like to differentiate "abstract" from "mathematical" (as the latter seems like an unnecessary restriction)
My problem with the simulation argument is that you then have to explain the existence of a separate universe in which the simulation is running, so it's doesn't really explain anything (recursive logic), in a way similar to monotheistic religions (A lot of it seems like wishful thinking on the part of software engineers). The interesting part about the general abstract function concept is that the universe would automatically *have* to "exist" if it is possible for consciousness to arise from an abstract function, as the function's existence is perceived by itself.
It may all just be an abstract function (no real "creation" event per say), in which case the only reason it's not perceived as abstract as say the Mandelbrot fractal is because of consciousness being part of the function (real from the point of view of the conscious entities in the function). In a sense, the universe was abstract until we became conscious, which funnily enough seemed to have occurred about 4000 years ago (you would think that religious folks would jump on something like this, but no, they seem to prefer sticking with their talking snakes story)
My experience is that any project is as good as the best member of the team, eg: 100 monkeys will not produce something higher quality than a single monkey, but throw a single smart dude in the mix and things will look a lot different, though the smart dude may get tired of doing all the work of 100 monkeys and may develop an attitude (he might need more than a few extra bananas to stick around)
How to compress the content *with good quality within a limited computation time* is the real challenge (otherwise, yes, you can just take a MPEG-2 encoder and stick a HEVC CABAC syntax at the end and you have a valid HEVC bitstream with good perf but crappy compression efficiency compared to H.264)
Since it's intra-frame only, it's not even a 'dec' -> maybe just a 'duh'
While it can be useful in pinpointing common code defects, interpreting coverity results as an absolute indicator of code quality is just retarded. 90% of coverity's defect's tend to be really false positives that would be obvious to even the average code monkey... Not sure that massaging a code base to please coverity and getting a 'high score' is really any kind of achievement and may be more an indicator that you have way too much time on your hands...
Doesn't have to be a simulation. Any abstract function that leads to consciousness would become reality for said consciousness. In other words, there is really no difference between abstract and reality. If an abstract function that desbcribes consciousness can exist it would in fact "exist" (therefore the universe must exist).
Huh, the lapped transform is not quite "beyond" next-gen codecs like HEVC. In fact, the [over]lapped transform is already part of the WMV9/VC-1 codec, and it didn't really have a significant impact on coding efficiency (it does tend to look more blurry than blocky at very high quantization, but both cases look like crap at these levels)
2^57,885,163-1 Huh. Isn't *every* odd power of two minus 1 a prime number, in which case it makes it much less impressive to find a (2^(2N))-1 ?
Dude, I understand the impatience/frustration due to the slow progress of physics in past 40 or so years, but if I understand you correctly, you're seriously suggesting to sit on our asses and do nothing just waiting/praying for the next Einstein to turn up ? I'm also on the opinion that the Standard Model is a bit like curve-fitting experimental results, and it does (obviously) work with observation around the range it was designed for (and we already know it fails outside of that, but still definitely useful in practice), but the best thing we can do IMO is to push experiments further and further to try to find discrepancies which will make it easier to come up with new theories, which is exactly what is going on at the LHC and many other places around the world. The next revolution might very well come out of a totally different field ~ personally I'm hoping that exascale computing will make it easier to test new theories (being able to accurate simulate entire organs at the molecular level could revolutionise medicine, advances in quantum chemistry could also [in]validate some theories and have plenty of practical implications).
does anyone really care ?
The real problem is a lack of a common API for encoding regardless of GPU/CPU, which leads to vendor-specific implementations with varying degrees of quality. The most efficient way to pretty much do anything is a dedicated HW block (from both perf and power point of view), so there is no question that there is value in encoding using dedicated hardware, but the software has to catch up.
The key part of the article is "according to vaccine researchers"...
One man's USB treasure is another man's garbage...
I'm no mathematician, but the proof in the paper looks very solid (certainly makes sense from a coding point of view). Though the proof is more general, it also pretty much demonstrates that factorization can't be achieved in polynomial time (thus that RSA is indeed secure).
Many image-enhancement techniques exist that do just this, and this is not really new. In fact this proves that square pixels work just fine to transmit the information, but the image can be enhanced to a larger resolution by non-linear techniques that work better than simple [traditional] upsampling.
nice.