well... it represents the process (even if you believe in god... unless eternal souls are somehow biological)... but you're right, it's not exactly analagous in the way most people would understand...
The "uber-nifty" thing about Turing machines is that any conceivable combination of turing machines controlling other turing machines running hundreds of millions of multiple tapes is ALL reducible down to a single turing machine running a single tape.
All that to say, you could represent everything going on at a biological level in a turing machine... but you'd have to be retarded... and masochistic.... and probably a bit insane too...
This is in partial response to your post, and another post by someone claiming that since the protein is itself a "turing-like machine with tape" "writing" to another "tape" that it actually wasn't like a turing machine at all... which is true.
A biological system is nothing like a turing machine... but given that a turing machine (in RL) is nothing like a "real" turing machine (which has an infinitely long tape)... it hardly matters. When people compare something to a turing machine, they basically really mean that it's a stateful system which can be represented (abstractly!) by the abstract notation that is a turing-machine.... since a real turing machine doesn't actually exist, hence no direct comparison can be drawn between whatever they're talking about and a real turing machine
So you're right, and wrong. You're right in that a computer metaphor is generally useless... but a turing machine is more of a math metaphor than a computer metaphor.... computers are just designed based on our attempt to build a real life representation of something that can't actually be built (ie. a finite state machine with infinite storage....) and you're wrong in that the abstract turing machine can, indeed, represent whatever is going on at those lower biological levels, since, they're stateful.
I hope it's good.... they look nifty, and currently I just carry my cards around in my pocket because I couldn't find any decent cardholders... so I just ordered one...
I guess the biggest point that I was trying to make is that it's not complete. You can't hold it against the same scrutiny as you would, say, QED, because it's not at the same stage of completeness.
Will it ever get there? Maybe not.
Once it gets there could it be wrong anyway? Possibly
Is it even worth attempting then? Emphatically YES!
And that's the only real beef that I had with TFA... it seemed to be saying "It's not a complete theory, and it's been incomplete for a while, so it's useless and should be dropped.
There is a good chance that we are... I really can't speak to that since I'm CS and not Physics. So I've really no idea exactly how much in the way of resources is being thrown at this
If TFA was trying to say this, it seemed very much to do so by attempting to devalue the entire endeavour. Which is something that I find particularly offensive. I don't claim to be able to understand the mathematical underpinnings of modern physics as well as I would like... but I have been initiated into them through a couple of university level courses. I also have some insight into the logic driving the field. Couple that with the fact that I'm a firm believer that science for it's own sake is never a wasted venture, and you might be able to see where I'm coming from.
Yes, and physics is full of mathematically complex theories (like schrodingers wave equations for example) but you can still predict where an artillery shell is going to land based on Newton's theories.... the theory you use is determined, in large part, by the domain you're trying to find a solution in. You wouldn't, for example, try to use QM to model the collisions of balls on a pool table. Likewise, you wouldn't use QM to try and model gravitational interactions between bodies... but the intent of string theory is that you'd be able to do either using the same framework... that alone should give some insight into the complexity of the theoretical underpinnings of it.... and explain why "breakthroughs" are taking so goddamned long. It has to maintain consistency in domains where other theories can't even represent what's going on... let alone provide the mechanism for making predictions in these domains.
When you come up with an idea for how Things(TM) work... it's would be a hypothesis. When you get a large portion of the physics community to start working out the math and trying to get it to the point where it's provable/disprovable, it becomes a theory. Just because Einstein's theory of relativity (or general relativity) has withstood a fuckload more scrutiny than string theory doesn't mean that it is somehow more than just a theory. At any point in time, someone could make an observation that isn't supported by the theory (even Einstein's) and if the theoretical underpinnings of the theory cannot be modified to support the observation... then the theory is wrong and it is discarded (or in the case of Newton, included with the caveat that it falls apart outside of a specific scope.)
String theory hasn't been replaced by newer versions, it's been updated with small modifications like "what if the basic premise is the same, but instead of a 1D string vibrating in 4 dimensions (x,y,z and t) it's vibrating in 11 dimensions, where the other dimensions are curled up within the planck length?"
There are reasons why string theory has failed to come up with any NEW predictions. For one thing, it's being constantly tweaked so that it is consistent with EXISTING experimentation. After all, why would you build a theory that you hope will become a GUT if it's not consistent with other proven theories?
The other thing is that this is a theory... the fact that it (mathematically) treats particles as being a 1D string vibrating in n-dimensions doesn't actually mean that if you could see items smaller than the planck length, that you would actually see a vibrating string!! It's a mathematical representation... the math doesn't have to represent exactly what's happening as long as it can be used to describe what is happening.
After all, modern chemistry is incredibly useful for predicting how atoms interact with eachother to form compounds... even though it's based off the idea that electrons orbit a nucleus like a tiny little planet orbitting a sun... that is precisely NOT what an electron does, but who cares, the math allows you to make determinations. It's the same with string theory.
I do not think that string theory is a con job. I do, however, think that attempting to come up with a GUT is a MUCH MUCH larger task than simply trying to explain, say, quantum behaviour, like tunneling.
They're starting with a very simple, and very elegant premise (that all particles are periodic vibrations with different frequencies corresponding to different particles) and then building from there. Hell... start with that and just try and figure out how to represent the periodic table... that alone would be mind-boggling. Now start trying to figure out what particle interaction would look like... then build up from there. The trick, is that it's possible to describe nearly everything using this theory... but it hasn't happened yet. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it'll be easy.
This, of course, probably means that it's the wrong way of going about it... but that doesn't make it a waste of time... the hardest part, I think, will be in having enough patience to see what the theory can produce outside of existing theories... unfortunately it has to be harmonized with existing theory;-)
Slashdot Mirror
OMG PONIES!?
... no?...oh, sorry... still getting used to this
well... it represents the process (even if you believe in god... unless eternal souls are somehow biological)... but you're right, it's not exactly analagous in the way most people would understand...
OMG!!... paint him green and he'd be a ringer...
Though, it is Knuth after all... when it comes to CS he pretty much is one with the force
Nothing worth having is easy.
couldn't agree more. I just fail to see the attraction. dah well... to each his own...
The "uber-nifty" thing about Turing machines is that any conceivable combination of turing machines controlling other turing machines running hundreds of millions of multiple tapes is ALL reducible down to a single turing machine running a single tape.
All that to say, you could represent everything going on at a biological level in a turing machine... but you'd have to be retarded... and masochistic.... and probably a bit insane too...
This is in partial response to your post, and another post by someone claiming that since the protein is itself a "turing-like machine with tape" "writing" to another "tape" that it actually wasn't like a turing machine at all... which is true.
A biological system is nothing like a turing machine... but given that a turing machine (in RL) is nothing like a "real" turing machine (which has an infinitely long tape)... it hardly matters. When people compare something to a turing machine, they basically really mean that it's a stateful system which can be represented (abstractly!) by the abstract notation that is a turing-machine.... since a real turing machine doesn't actually exist, hence no direct comparison can be drawn between whatever they're talking about and a real turing machine
So you're right, and wrong. You're right in that a computer metaphor is generally useless... but a turing machine is more of a math metaphor than a computer metaphor.... computers are just designed based on our attempt to build a real life representation of something that can't actually be built (ie. a finite state machine with infinite storage....) and you're wrong in that the abstract turing machine can, indeed, represent whatever is going on at those lower biological levels, since, they're stateful.
That sounds almost as exciting as stabbing myself in the face with my pen.... repeatedly....
Regardless, your original post still falls within the domain of "sad but true" :-(
Where the fuck is Jack Thompson when you need him!?
Now there's going to be a rash of gang-like violence perpetuated by teens lobbing fucking big-macs at eachother...
I hope it's good.... they look nifty, and currently I just carry my cards around in my pocket because I couldn't find any decent cardholders... so I just ordered one...
Yes, they're called robots.... I think car manufacturers use the odd one or two...
Oh poor misguided youth... ;-)
LOL, compared to F=ma, a first order DE is mathematically complex..... it was a comparative statement dammit....
hmm... never knew there was a distinction... this is why I love slashdot... learn something new everyday :)
Grand Unified/Unifying Theory.... aka a TOE (Theory of Everything)
A Theory that can explain particle physics, nuclear forces (strong, weak, electroweak, etc...) and gravity all in the same breath ;-)
Yeah, I figured that part would be tough. My strong suit in CS is logic though, so I'm hoping that it'll help me out a bit.
I guess the biggest point that I was trying to make is that it's not complete. You can't hold it against the same scrutiny as you would, say, QED, because it's not at the same stage of completeness.
Will it ever get there? Maybe not.
Once it gets there could it be wrong anyway? Possibly
Is it even worth attempting then? Emphatically YES!
And that's the only real beef that I had with TFA... it seemed to be saying "It's not a complete theory, and it's been incomplete for a while, so it's useless and should be dropped.
There is a good chance that we are... I really can't speak to that since I'm CS and not Physics. So I've really no idea exactly how much in the way of resources is being thrown at this
If TFA was trying to say this, it seemed very much to do so by attempting to devalue the entire endeavour. Which is something that I find particularly offensive. I don't claim to be able to understand the mathematical underpinnings of modern physics as well as I would like... but I have been initiated into them through a couple of university level courses. I also have some insight into the logic driving the field. Couple that with the fact that I'm a firm believer that science for it's own sake is never a wasted venture, and you might be able to see where I'm coming from.
Yes, and physics is full of mathematically complex theories (like schrodingers wave equations for example) but you can still predict where an artillery shell is going to land based on Newton's theories.... the theory you use is determined, in large part, by the domain you're trying to find a solution in. You wouldn't, for example, try to use QM to model the collisions of balls on a pool table. Likewise, you wouldn't use QM to try and model gravitational interactions between bodies... but the intent of string theory is that you'd be able to do either using the same framework... that alone should give some insight into the complexity of the theoretical underpinnings of it.... and explain why "breakthroughs" are taking so goddamned long. It has to maintain consistency in domains where other theories can't even represent what's going on... let alone provide the mechanism for making predictions in these domains.
I think I'd have to agree with you there.
When you come up with an idea for how Things(TM) work... it's would be a hypothesis. When you get a large portion of the physics community to start working out the math and trying to get it to the point where it's provable/disprovable, it becomes a theory. Just because Einstein's theory of relativity (or general relativity) has withstood a fuckload more scrutiny than string theory doesn't mean that it is somehow more than just a theory. At any point in time, someone could make an observation that isn't supported by the theory (even Einstein's) and if the theoretical underpinnings of the theory cannot be modified to support the observation... then the theory is wrong and it is discarded (or in the case of Newton, included with the caveat that it falls apart outside of a specific scope.)
a theory is, by definition, unproven and could be wrong.
DING DING DING!!!
Einstein's theory of general relativity is still a theory... it's not fucking ironclad or anything .... it's just that at this point, it's close.
But even that still doesn't stop you from hearing about things that cause a moments doubt in the theory...
This just in: Theories are not immutable law... film at 11...
it's true, it really is FUD.
String theory hasn't been replaced by newer versions, it's been updated with small modifications like "what if the basic premise is the same, but instead of a 1D string vibrating in 4 dimensions (x,y,z and t) it's vibrating in 11 dimensions, where the other dimensions are curled up within the planck length?"
There are reasons why string theory has failed to come up with any NEW predictions. For one thing, it's being constantly tweaked so that it is consistent with EXISTING experimentation. After all, why would you build a theory that you hope will become a GUT if it's not consistent with other proven theories?
The other thing is that this is a theory... the fact that it (mathematically) treats particles as being a 1D string vibrating in n-dimensions doesn't actually mean that if you could see items smaller than the planck length, that you would actually see a vibrating string!! It's a mathematical representation... the math doesn't have to represent exactly what's happening as long as it can be used to describe what is happening.
After all, modern chemistry is incredibly useful for predicting how atoms interact with eachother to form compounds... even though it's based off the idea that electrons orbit a nucleus like a tiny little planet orbitting a sun... that is precisely NOT what an electron does, but who cares, the math allows you to make determinations. It's the same with string theory.
I do not think that string theory is a con job. I do, however, think that attempting to come up with a GUT is a MUCH MUCH larger task than simply trying to explain, say, quantum behaviour, like tunneling.
They're starting with a very simple, and very elegant premise (that all particles are periodic vibrations with different frequencies corresponding to different particles) and then building from there. Hell... start with that and just try and figure out how to represent the periodic table... that alone would be mind-boggling. Now start trying to figure out what particle interaction would look like... then build up from there. The trick, is that it's possible to describe nearly everything using this theory... but it hasn't happened yet. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it'll be easy.
This, of course, probably means that it's the wrong way of going about it... but that doesn't make it a waste of time... the hardest part, I think, will be in having enough patience to see what the theory can produce outside of existing theories... unfortunately it has to be harmonized with existing theory ;-)
There's more than some truth to those. Any form of government whatsoever is horrible. No form of government at all is worse.... what can ya do?
Phew... thank God... I hear they use some sort of programming to raise mindless killers as part of some sort of conspiracy....
which leads me to my actual point/query: Is apathy the only true form of moderation?
Mind you, this also leads me to my favourite saying: "I'd preach apathy to the masses... but... meh..."
Which also leads me to my favourite masterninja creation: apathulhu: Dark Lord of Apathy