On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, [email protected] wrote:
Does this computer architecture assume not-comp?
No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for
all n, even infinite enumerable set of oscillators. You would need a
continuum of oscillators, with an explicit special non computable
hamiltonian. Today, there is nothing in nature which would threat
comp, except the collapse of the wave packet in theories where this
is a physical phenomenon. Even in that case, it would be a
computation with oracle, and not change much of the consequences.
Anyway, I am not sure I can make sense of the wave collapse being a
physical phenomenon, and even less that this play a role in the
brain computation.
Food for thought there, on the positive side. On the not-negative
side, from my perspective I would probably class comp - or as it can
be used - as an 'infinity theory', which whether correct or not, as
I do see it that way, one major prediction blanketing the whole
class would be that it's actually impossible for any development or
surprise to amount to a major problem for theories in that class, or
be influential. Purely as one of the properties of
infinity...there's always a bit more infinity for whatever comes
along.
You are right, and wrong.
Mechanism is usually presented as a form of finitism. Indeed only
finite entities needs to exist. We need only 0, s(0), s(s(s0))), etc.
But we need all of them, if only to explain Church thesis and define
what are universal machines (even if those are finite beings, but to
explain their possible behaviors, which are infinite).
Then, when taking into account the personal views, the many infinities
arise, but we can locate them somehow in the mind of the machines, as
the basic ontology remains enumerable.
Yet, what is assumed here is still much less that what is assumed in
particles theory, quantum field theory, etc.
So on the side in which I'm secretly interested and entertaining
this infinity paradigm it's food for thought. On the other not-not-
entertaining side, nothing new has been said about comp at all.
?
Well, I don't want to brag on the newness, but usually people consider
as new the following things:
- the existence of the first person indeterminacy
- the incompatiçbility between mechanism and materialism
- the idea that physics is derivable by machine's introspection, and
thus that physicalism has to be replaced, for those wanting comp to be
true, by a form of arithmeticalism (classified as finitism, see for
example the book by judson Webb : "mentalism, finitism and
metamathematics").
It is not ultrafinitism, which denies that "infinite" makes any sense
(but is self-defeating, as it needs to give some sense to infinity to
deny it). That is a bit like John Mike said once for "atheism".
So dwelling on that side as I am wont to do, for a chance of new
value Bruno, I need to formulate a question that bridges the divide
allowing possibility of value both sides. So here it is.
If this new architecture indeed happens to be sub-class for
mimicking the brain...and maybe something like, ok comp will
probably so no anything can be simulated on anything,.
I do have some problem to parse that sentence.
But within that there's a realistic open question, say to do with
our local apparent physically, which obviously would include
apparently physical materials out of which we build things, which
feasibly being non-fundamental may be informationally or other such
constrained within this apparently real dimensions, such that -
feasibly - yes anything can be simulated on anything,
?
The arithmetical reality, which does plays a role in comp, is full of
things which are not Turing emulable. Only a tiny part opf arithmetic
is Turing emulable. Most of it is not, and comp predicts that the
physical reality has to inherit at least one non computable aspects.
The apparent Turing emulability of the physical laws is a threat for
comp, a priori.
but somethings in the multiverse are that complex that simulating
them on our local physicality, requires large amounts of it,.
Yes.
So maybe - and let's say the doctor asks the question before anyone
discovers the above architiecture - and it so happens the digital
brain is materially in terms of atoms insufficient in terms of
weight to do the job, but by very unlucky mischance, it so happens
it's exactly enough to do everything just like the brain is
conscious but sadly would require a boulder sized object to generate
the consciousness, or maybe a planet size.
Then we got zombie. But the consequences of the reasoning remains,
unless you need an infinity amount of material things to do the job,
in which case non-comp is true, and we are out of the scope of this
theory.
So, unless there's a good reason why this is absolutely not a
possible situation ever in the multiverse, why would you say yes to
the doctor, not knowing absent hard theory for consciousness,
whether the particular materials and computer architecture was right?
The reason to say "yes" or "no" to the doctor are private. Some will
say "yes" because the alternative is just dying, and they want to see
their grandchildren growing.
I am publicly agnostic on the truth of comp, and if you want a
confession, I am not sure at all that comp is true. I don't care as I
am not defending any idea, except the logical point that IF comp is
true, then the theology of Plato and the mystics is right and the
theology of Aristotle and the naturalists are wrong (to be short).
Bruno
Bruno
15046Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works
like the brain
Expand Messages
richard ruquist
May 15 2:09 PM
View Source
0 Attachment
Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works like
the brain
May 15, 2014
This is a cartoon of an oscillating switch, the basis of a new type
of low-power analog computing (credit: Credit: Nikhil Shukla, Penn
State)
Computing is currently based on binary (Boolean) logic, but a new
type of computing architecture created by electrical engineers at
Penn State stores information in the frequencies and phases of
periodic signals and could work more like the human brain.
It would use a fraction of the energy necessary for today's
computers, according to the engineers.
To achieve the new architecture, they used a thin film of vanadium
oxide on a titanium dioxide substrate to create an oscillating
switch. Vanadium dioxide is called a "wacky oxide" because it
transitions from a conducting metal to an insulating semiconductor
and vice versa with the addition of a small amount of heat or
electrical current.
Biological synchronization for associative processing
Using a standard electrical engineering trick, Nikhil Shukla,
graduate student in electrical engineering, added a series resistor
to the oxide device to stabilize oscillations. When he added a
second similar oscillating system, he discovered that, over time,
the two devices began to oscillate in unison, or synchronize.
This coupled system could provide the basis for non-Boolean
computing. Shukla worked with Suman Datta, professor of electrical
engineering, and co-advisor Roman Engel-Herbert, assistant
professor of materials science and engineering, Penn State. They
reported their results May 14 in Scientific Reports (open access).
"It's called a small-world network," explained Shukla. "You see it
in lots of biological systems, such as certain species of
fireflies. The males will flash randomly, but then for some unknown
reason the flashes synchronize over time." The brain is also a
small-world network of closely clustered nodes that evolved for
more efficient information processing.
"Biological synchronization is everywhere," added Datta. "We wanted
to use it for a different kind of computing called associative
processing, which is an analog rather than digital way to compute."
An array of oscillators can store patterns -- for instance, the
color of someone's hair, their height and skin texture. If a second
area of oscillators has the same pattern, they will begin to
synchronize, and the degree of match can be read out, without
consuming a lot of energy and requiring a lot of transistors, as in
Boolean computing.
A neuromorphic computer chip
Datta is collaborating with Vijay Narayanan, professor of computer
science and engineering, Penn State, in exploring the use of these
coupled oscillations to solve visual recognition problems more
efficiently than existing embedded vision processors.
Shukla and Datta called on the expertise of Cornell University
materials scientist Darrell Schlom to make the vanadium dioxide
thin film, which has extremely high quality similar to single
crystal silicon. Arijit Raychowdhury, computer engineer, and
Abhinav Parihar graduate student, both of Georgia Tech,
mathematically simulated the nonlinear dynamics of coupled phase
transitions in the vanadium dioxide devices.
Parihar created a short video simulation of the transitions, which
occur at a rate close to a million times per second, to show the
way the oscillations synchronize. Venkatraman Gopalan, professor of
materials science and engineering, Penn State, used the Advanced
Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory to visually
characterize the structural changes occurring in the oxide thin
film in the midst of the oscillations.
Datta believes it will take seven to 10 years to scale up from
their current network of two-three coupled oscillators to the 100
million or so closely packed oscillators required to make a
neuromorphic computer chip.
One of the benefits of the novel device is that it will use only
about one percent of the energy of digital computing, allowing for
new ways to design computers. Much work remains to determine if
vanadium dioxide can be integrated into current silicon wafer
technology.
The Office of Naval Research primarily supported this work. The
National Science Foundation's Expeditions in Computing Award also
supported this work.
Abstract of Scientific Reports paper
Strongly correlated phases exhibit collective carrier dynamics that
if properly harnessed can enable novel functionalities and
applications. In this article, we investigate the phenomenon of
electrical oscillations in a prototypical MIT system, vanadium
dioxide (VO2). We show that the key to such oscillatory behaviour
is the ability to induce and stabilize a non-hysteretic and
spontaneously reversible phase transition using a negative feedback
mechanism. Further, we investigate the synchronization and coupling
dynamics of such VO2 based relaxation oscillators and show, via
experiment and simulation, that this coupled oscillator system
exhibits rich non-linear dynamics including charge oscillations
that are synchronized in both frequency and phase. Our approach of
harnessing a non-hysteretic reversible phase transition region is
applicable to other correlated systems exhibiting metal-insulator
transitions and can be a potential candidate for oscillator based
non-Boolean computing.
references:
Nikhil Shukla et al., Synchronized charge oscillations in
correlated electron systems, Scientific Reports, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/
srep04964 (open access)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
