Interesting. I think you are onto something here. We can think of a universe as an encoding of a particular axiomatic system, and then there are "facts" in that universe which come up to surface with high probability. To an observer they look like "laws". Moreover, there may be some undecidable propositions which, to an observer, appear like sheer randomness. Also, if the number of qubits in the universe is infinite, it is quite possible that the universe "knows" everything.
In this paper, we will consider mathematical undecidability in certain axiomatic systems which can be completed
and which therefore are not subject to Goodel's incompleteness theorem.
[snip]
Now we show that the undecidability of mathematical propositions
can be tested in quantum experiments. To this end we introduce a physical "black box" whose internal configuration
encodes Boolean functions.
From what I understood, they use qubits to encode facts about finite boolean functions. For example, they can use a number of qubits to encode a situation where f:{0,1}->{0,1}
and f(0) = 0. Sure enough, the proposition f(1) = 0 is undecidable from the given information, and they claim that they can measure this fact, which, imho, is really cool.
However, those people who wanted to use qubits to establish consistency results should not hold their breath. For a finite structure, decidability of any statement can be checked by going through a long table. To do anything ineteresting, one would have to use infinitely many qubits, which I do not see happening.
How does one get other guys to envy the size of his botnet? Bust it out during parties and on dance floors? Join a botnet ring? Or just hope that girls will tell other guys about your size? I mean, of your botnet?
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide [...]
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were all mass murderers. In case with Stalin, a case could be made for genocide. I basically agree with you, but I think that Hitler only needed to tie the war with Russians and then he would be safely on his way to join the pantheon of great leaders of antiquity. To History, his only mortal sin was loosing.
Copyright law only affects distribution and has nothing to say about the use of a copyrighted work. In particular, copyright law cannot prevent anyone from reading a book, which, imho, is the main reason why making an electronic copy for personal use should be legal. Loaning a book is legal, and when three or four people are reading the same book at the same time, it is also legal. What could be a rational reason to prohibit making an electronic copy for my friend? She will read it get rid of it, just as she would with a loaned book! Copyright law was originally intended to remove competition from publishing, and it should stay that way. If someone was to claim that by downloading an episode of The Simpsons I am "publishing" or "distributing" something, I would have to laugh.
In a situation as described above, making an electronic copy is only as immoral as it is illegal. Your proposed solution is still illegal, and is therefore just as immoral. On top of that, it makes one look like a looser.
I would suggest making an illegitimate copy, which is my solution for every low-risk situation.
I totally agree. Hopefully, this development will lead to creation of cheap, autonomous (and ideally, airborne) robots that can terminate unwanted politicians. Oh boy... It is funny to think of times when a president of a large country will have the same level of personal security that a street cop enjoys today. That would require a policy that does not piss anyone off! What a day that will be.
I think that the problem is people having misconceptions about robots.
Go on!
They're not sentient. They don't think. They only do what we tell them to.
By your own argument, if we were to tell them to "be sentient" and to "think for themselves" and to "make their own decisions", that is what they would have to do. Yet they are not sentient, but their program tells them that they are, but they cannot be, but they have to... [Cue smoking CPU]
In actuality, however, a CPU won't smoke. If a robot is programmed to be autonomous to some degree, so it will be, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your part is going to change that. Yes, a sufficiently individualistic autonomous robot will sometimes go postal, but that is a price of being less predictable (and so more effective) in a combat situation.
Uh, actually, the first ever Starbucks was opened in a restroom of another Starbucks. And to this day, Starbucks is the poster child of forceful penetration.
Who are you talking to? Seriously, are you trying to persuade anyone?
Stop listening to garbage music that corporate America wants you to buy.
Either your reader is into commercial music, and then you sound like a retard, because he thinks that he is getting what he wants, even though at a higher price than he likes. Or he is not into commercial music, and then he will mod you up because you are singing his song. I do not suppose that you want to sound retarded, so I am assuming you are just karma whoring.
Look at Radiohead... how much did they earn on that album they released as donor-ware?
Radiohead, if anything, is a living proof that you must sign with a major label to become a star,
since they started out their career by signing with Capitol. There was no freaking chance that Radiohead, with its predictably depressing tunes and lyrics[1] and a frontman who looks like he's had a mild stroke, could ever make it into the spotlight of western music without commercial support. Radiohead proves that the only reasonable way to hammer out your own platinum is to sell yourself to a label and pray for your lottery numbers to come up.
[1] I like depressing music, but when a band has, like, one song that is not depressing[a], I have to draw the line.
I totally agree. With all due respect, Searle's argument betrays his unfamiliarity with software engineering. Even a relatively simple computer can have goals and intentions, it is only a matter of programming it to have them. One can also write a program which, from time to time, will evaluate its own progress and select a new goal. One can make the decision process seemingly random by consulting a large number of independent inputs. One can introduce chance into the process. I wonder if prof. Searle is "having intentions" in a radically different way. If he does, why won't he tell us exactly how his "understanding" is different, so that we can write a program demonstrating the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I think you are onto something here. We can think of a universe as an encoding of a particular axiomatic system, and then there are "facts" in that universe which come up to surface with high probability. To an observer they look like "laws". Moreover, there may be some undecidable propositions which, to an observer, appear like sheer randomness. Also, if the number of qubits in the universe is infinite, it is quite possible that the universe "knows" everything.
From what I understood, they use qubits to encode facts about finite boolean functions. For example, they can use a number of qubits to encode a situation where f:{0,1}->{0,1} and f(0) = 0. Sure enough, the proposition f(1) = 0 is undecidable from the given information, and they claim that they can measure this fact, which, imho, is really cool.
However, those people who wanted to use qubits to establish consistency results should not hold their breath. For a finite structure, decidability of any statement can be checked by going through a long table. To do anything ineteresting, one would have to use infinitely many qubits, which I do not see happening.
Oh, THAT Clio....
How does one get other guys to envy the size of his botnet? Bust it out during parties and on dance floors? Join a botnet ring? Or just hope that girls will tell other guys about your size? I mean, of your botnet?
In other words, you are being too harsh on Clio [...]
Really, by fully agreeing? And who is Clio?
Your post might have been dropped, probably due to the excessive amount of posting from your end.
Mmmmmmm, musty smelling manuals....
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide [...]
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were all mass murderers. In case with Stalin, a case could be made for genocide. I basically agree with you, but I think that Hitler only needed to tie the war with Russians and then he would be safely on his way to join the pantheon of great leaders of antiquity. To History, his only mortal sin was loosing.
Copyright law only affects distribution and has nothing to say about the use of a copyrighted work. In particular, copyright law cannot prevent anyone from reading a book, which, imho, is the main reason why making an electronic copy for personal use should be legal. Loaning a book is legal, and when three or four people are reading the same book at the same time, it is also legal. What could be a rational reason to prohibit making an electronic copy for my friend? She will read it get rid of it, just as she would with a loaned book! Copyright law was originally intended to remove competition from publishing, and it should stay that way. If someone was to claim that by downloading an episode of The Simpsons I am "publishing" or "distributing" something, I would have to laugh.
In a situation as described above, making an electronic copy is only as immoral as it is illegal. Your proposed solution is still illegal, and is therefore just as immoral. On top of that, it makes one look like a looser.
I would suggest making an illegitimate copy, which is my solution for every low-risk situation.
In time, regardless if there is a God or not, the cosmos will be much like a simple clock.
Just like the atom? We are so lucky that the foundations of physical world lack uncertainty. Waaaait a second...
It is almost as if this scientific project fell under an evil magical curse.
I totally agree. Hopefully, this development will lead to creation of cheap, autonomous (and ideally, airborne) robots that can terminate unwanted politicians. Oh boy... It is funny to think of times when a president of a large country will have the same level of personal security that a street cop enjoys today. That would require a policy that does not piss anyone off! What a day that will be.
What if it said "Vaya con Dios" in a deep, stern male voice just before it killed a villain? That would be pretty Righteous.
I think that the problem is people having misconceptions about robots.
Go on!
They're not sentient. They don't think. They only do what we tell them to.
By your own argument, if we were to tell them to "be sentient" and to "think for themselves" and to "make their own decisions", that is what they would have to do. Yet they are not sentient, but their program tells them that they are, but they cannot be, but they have to... [Cue smoking CPU]
In actuality, however, a CPU won't smoke. If a robot is programmed to be autonomous to some degree, so it will be, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your part is going to change that. Yes, a sufficiently individualistic autonomous robot will sometimes go postal, but that is a price of being less predictable (and so more effective) in a combat situation.
Pauly Shore, is that you?
Good grief, you are right, he has more things to worry about than the cutthroat industry. "Employ" is not even a noun.
They are of no use if your hardware is a floppy.
Uh, actually, the first ever Starbucks was opened in a restroom of another Starbucks. And to this day, Starbucks is the poster child of forceful penetration.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
-Edsger Dijkstra
Granted, "soul" is not the same thing as "intelligence", but the same simile works.
Who are you talking to? Seriously, are you trying to persuade anyone?
Stop listening to garbage music that corporate America wants you to buy.
Either your reader is into commercial music, and then you sound like a retard, because he thinks that he is getting what he wants, even though at a higher price than he likes. Or he is not into commercial music, and then he will mod you up because you are singing his song. I do not suppose that you want to sound retarded, so I am assuming you are just karma whoring.
Look at Radiohead... how much did they earn on that album they released as donor-ware?
Radiohead, if anything, is a living proof that you must sign with a major label to become a star, since they started out their career by signing with Capitol. There was no freaking chance that Radiohead, with its predictably depressing tunes and lyrics[1] and a frontman who looks like he's had a mild stroke, could ever make it into the spotlight of western music without commercial support. Radiohead proves that the only reasonable way to hammer out your own platinum is to sell yourself to a label and pray for your lottery numbers to come up.
[1] I like depressing music, but when a band has, like, one song that is not depressing[a], I have to draw the line.
[a] IMO, Everything in Its Right Place.
Where are you getting your weed, man?
5-th post!
I totally agree. With all due respect, Searle's argument betrays his unfamiliarity with software engineering. Even a relatively simple computer can have goals and intentions, it is only a matter of programming it to have them. One can also write a program which, from time to time, will evaluate its own progress and select a new goal. One can make the decision process seemingly random by consulting a large number of independent inputs. One can introduce chance into the process. I wonder if prof. Searle is "having intentions" in a radically different way. If he does, why won't he tell us exactly how his "understanding" is different, so that we can write a program demonstrating the contrary.
But how the hell do you spend $928,000 spent on software and $661,000 on hardware?
Solid gold urinals powered by super-computers?