On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, [email protected] <javascript:> 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. > I think I mostly get what you've said here....as I've read yours and a few other peoples take on each point over time. I think it's reasonable to regard as 'infinity based' thinking, theorizing etc, as one or more of: - believes nature has infinite resources it can bring to a converged dimensionality (I.e. the MWI thinks multiple worlds can be in the same converged place) - solves a problem with a hypothesis involving the anthropic principle if part of that solutution implies an effectively infinite space - believes a theory absent verified predictions : the reason this one qualifies in my view is because in this day and age, anyone that does this ends up with infinity thinking, because that the major problem and threat facing the future of science. - OR a theory that IMPLIES and SUPPORTS a infinity theory. Because if that is the case, it is now with 'consequences' an infinity theory.
> > > > > 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"). > If you listen to nothing else I ever say, please please listen to this: it's really bad that you've wrapped yourself in this modesty thing. I can obviously appreciate the sentiment underneath..I'm sure it kicked off virtuous. But it sort of psychologically encourages behaviours that a lot of people - particularly very sceptical people - will find suspicious. For example, I think there's a link somewhere between not being clear and repetitive what you think your big accomplishments are, and - possibly - getting into habits that probably start with trying to find lots of different metaphors or arguments to represent your ideas (because that would be one way to avoid appearing to repeat key accomplishments)...which can lead to situations where a sceptical person is challenging you about something you've said in the past, which you may not even remember that well, because it was a metaphor...a kind experimental statement. In that situation on your side it will seem natural and reasonable to simply reformulate the same underlying and represent it. But to the person that has challenged the earlier thing..,,.that will start to look intellectually dishonest. There are other behaviours, that can come. I think this thing about being logician and not believing in the theory. Again, it might have been true at some point., It might be true now. But that's something that has to reviewed by you on a regular basis. Because you frequently also so you believe your theory is true. You've recently said this a thread in your last 20 or 30 posts. Also your behaviour is absolutely identical to someone that totally commits and invests in an idea and is very protective and single-minded about it. And a sceptical person will judge the behaviour and the words together, and if there is a conflict, the behaviour will be taken as true. But IMHO there's an even worse thing about this logician/doesn't-belive gig. Bruno......you are marvellous the way you are. Apart from the falsification thing. I'm interested in history, and I've studied a few of the geniuses...though more circumstances around them. They were LUNATICS Bruno..obsessed maniacs willing to do ANYTHING to get that next insight. These aren't people that were willing doubt their beliefs on the basis of a rhetorical argument, convention, populist standing, grant availaibility. Conjecture and Refutation? Get the hell out of here! When has Deutsch ever done the C&R thing with anyone resulting in Deutsch changing a view? Never that I can find. But there's a reason and it's because it's amazing hard because reality is so freaky. That's what it takes. I'm interested in your because you're a lunatic. I don't know if you're going the right way. I think and hope you will convert your work to predictive course...which would require stripping back a lot of things...for now. But maybe I'm wrong...maybe you can see a prediction in the future....in which case keep going I guess. But it's definitely people like you really are, than these cool logician types that don't believe anything, that change the world,. > 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. > Just as a random sampling can you provide the over-view tsoning and published reference for what you say above? > 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. > I think it is very relevant Bruno. It reveals, I think, how irrational and wreckless it would be for anyone to say yes to the doctor. Because We...and You...Don't know...how consciousness comes about, and have no answer as to whether that digital is conscious at all. > > > > > 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. > You're saying I can say yes to the doctor at the point of my death? What has that proven then...I thought this is supposed to be a statement of commitment to an idea. Haven't you noticed how no one gives a shit about the future. A lot of people will say yes to the doctor for a totally implausible shot at eternal life if it doesn't cost them anything. A lot of people will be happy to do that if it costs 3M lives in 50 years and will sign on the dotted line. Because that's exactly what we are doing in a lot of other ways, and for a lot less than a shot at eternal life...we'll do it for more luxiourious brand of soap mate. > > 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). > On the grounds of behaviour and your many other public statements, I don't accept it.....not in any meaningful sense.....and thank god you're not. > > > 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 >> brainMay 15, 2014 >> [image: oscillating_switch] >> 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 <http://www.psu.edu/> 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)<http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140514/srep04964/full/srep04964.html> >> >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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.
