On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:

> On 15.08.2011 23:42 Jason Resch said the following:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
>> wrote:
>>  On 15.08.2011 07:56 Jason Resch said the following:
>>> ...
>>> Can we accurately simulate physical laws or can't we?  Before you
>>>> answer, take a few minutes to watch this amazing video, which
>>>> simulates the distribution of mass throughout the universe on
>>>> the largest scales:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?****v=W35SYkfdGtw<http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=W35SYkfdGtw>
>>>> <http://www.**youtube.com/watch?v=**W35SYkfdGtw<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W35SYkfdGtw>
>>>> >(Note
>>>> each point of light represents a galaxy, not a star)
>>> The answer on your question depends on what you mean by accurately
>>> and what by physical laws. I am working with finite elements (more
>>> specifically with ANSYS Multiphysics) and I can tell for sure that
>>> if you speak of simulation of the universe, then the current
>>> simulation technology does not scale. Nowadays one could solve a
>>> linear system reaching dimension of 1 billion but this will not
>>> help you. I would say that either contemporary numerical methods
>>> are deadly wrong, or simulated equations are not the right ones.
>>> In this respect, you may want to look how simulation is done for
>>> example in Second Life.
>>> Well, today numerical simulation is a good business
>>> (computer-aided engineering is about a billion per year) and it
>>> continues to grow. Yet, if you look in detail, then there are some
>>> areas when it could be employed nicely and some where it better to
>>> forget about simulation.
>>> I understand that you speak "in principle".
>> Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
>> machine (free from our limitations).  Then it is obvious that with
>> the appropriate tape, a physical system can be approximated to any
>> desired level of accuracy so long as it is predictable.  Colin said
>> such models of physics or chemistry are impossible, so I hope he
>> elaborates on what makes these systems unpredictable.
> I have to repeat that the current simulation technology just does not
> scale. With it even God will not help. The only way that I could imagine is
> that God's Turing machine is based on completely different simulation
> technology (this however means that our current knowledge of physical laws
> and/or numerics is wrong).
I think Brent's comment addressed this well.  It is not a question of scale
or different types of Turing machines.  All Turing machines are equivalent.

>  Yet, I am not sure if extrapolation too far away from the current
>>> knowledge makes sense, as eventually we are coming to
>>> "philosophical controversies".
>>>  We're already simulating peices of brain tissue on the order of fruit
>> fly brains (10,000 neurons).  Computers double in power/price every
>> year, so 6 years later we could simulate mouse brains, another 6 we
>> can simulate cat brains, and in another 6 we can simulate human
>> brains. (By 2030)
>> But all of this is an aside from point that I was making regarding
>> the power and versatility of Turing machines.  Those who think
>> Artificial Intelligence is not possible with computers must show what
>> about the brain is unpredictable or unmodelable.
> Why that? I guess that you should prove first that consciousness is
> predictable and could be modeled.
Everyone (except perhaps the substance dualists, mysterians, and solopists
-- each non-scientific or anti-scientific philosophies) believe the brain
(on the lowest levels) operates according to simple and predictable rules.
Also note, the topic of the above was not consciousness, but intelligence.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to