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. Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
