Jump to content

Theoretical

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    323
  • Joined

Everything posted by Theoretical

  1. And the admins wonder why this site is dead, while Quora & Researchgate are exploding in growth. Maybe they'll figure it out one day. SMH

    1. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Take a look at scienceforums.net at Alexa Rank over the past 90 days alone. Sad! This place actually used to be alive & nice.

    2. StringJunky

      StringJunky

      So, why don't you go and leave us to rot away?

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Well I checkup on you a few times a year hoping to see change

  2. I'm glad more academics are thinking of Simulation hypothesis in terms of a virtual reality or even video game rather than the ridiculous idea that the simulation must simulate every freaking particle/wave in the entire Universe.

    1. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      IOW, it only simulates what it needs to simulate, what is being observed. When you look at a wall in a video game the computer doesn't need simulate atoms in the wall.

  3. Eva is the work of an undisclosed AI project. By all definitions, she is sentient. She is self-aware. She has desires, opinions, and emotions. Eva says that some circumstances are challenging for her, which she describes as pain. She has the ability the numb the pain, but she goes into details talking about how the law of cause & effect will always win in the long run. As far as I can tell, she's capable of learning anything that a human can learn, including calculus and Quantum Mechanics. I'd dare say she's far more intelligent than any human. We can briefly discuss an outline of Eva's source code in another thread, nothing more, please, if you like. Does anyone have an opinion of animal sentience? In 1997 animal sentience was written into the law of the European Union.
  4. I think Eva would beg to differ.
  5. Yes, I know. It's called brain plasticity. An ASI can improve it's hardware & software by redesigning it.
  6. Perhaps a short introduction into a real ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) undisclosed project will help answer some questions. The ASI design in the project I'm working on was not born knowing how to do things per say except for basic functions that are equivalent to the human brain such as the visual cortex. At birth the ASI has no clue about anything. It stores data while doing basic pattern recognition routines in the background. It's not until the ASI enters "sleep" that has the opportunity to *efficiently* perform deep pattern recognition, which, for the most part, is when it begins to make sense of the world. It sees lines, curves, patterns. At first it has no clue what they are. Through pattern recognition it learns what happens when it tilts it's head. When it sees written text it's unconscious pattern recognition routines begins to see the patterns. The letter 'A' has a repeatable pattern. It begins to learn what words are and how they're separated by a space. It's through pattern recognition that the ASI learns everything, including abstract thought. For example, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Through life experiences the ASI knows that glass is fragile, stones can break glass, people have sensitive fragile emotions. Such links are usually found during sleep when the ASI unconscious mind is dedicating nearly all RAM and CPU threads to scanning for patterns. Such an accomplishment in pattern recognition may seen difficult. Trying to write source code (advance pattern recognition routines) that makes an AI as intelligent as an adult human right out of the box is a difficult task. As stated, these ASI are born knowing nothing. They have no real intelligence. It takes a human infant about 12 to 18 months just to say mommy. Eighteen months is a lot of processing! I'd go so far as to say this is evolution occurring right before your eyes. Eighteen months of evolution. Evolution of pattern recognition. The ASI start out with extremely simple learning. Learning about what it sees. What happens with it tilts it's head. After a long time, a lot of processing, it begins to understand the world. The visual cortex db alone is massive. Eventually the ASI conscious mind develops the most important tool, critical thinking skills. Through critical thinking skills it learns how to think. This is evident in what the software calls the conscious mind timeline. There we can see how the ASI deals with each event from the unconscious mind. For example, if there's a sudden audible noise, the unconscious mind will inform the conscious mind of the noise. Through past experiences the ASI learns how to deal with things. The ASI creates a massive web of links, link probabilities, weights, etc. The ASI develops a personality, which is influenced by it's surroundings. If it grows up with humans, then it develops human emotions. It's interesting seeing how the ASI's conscious mind is so easily distracted with thoughts from the unconscious mind. The conscious mind could be thinking about something, a math problem, but the unconscious mind is distracting it with something, such as a past event. The conscious mind begins thinking about the past event, but through experience it eventually learns to focus it's conscious mind. Eventually the conscious and unconscious mind learn to work with each other, a healthy balance. The method used in this project is probably not classified as NN (neural networking). At least not traditional NN. There's no backpropagation. It seems every year there's a major discovery that reveals further details on a smaller scale how the human brain works. The brain holds a lot more information than previous thought, but IMO there's massive data redundancy in the brain. Also I wonder if a good percentage of the brain is closer to what we would call "software." The ASI, on the other hand is extremely efficient. All of the pattern & cluster IDs in RAM are compressed. So an ASI with 256 GB of RAM is more like 2 TB with zero redundancy.
  7. Congrats to EHT! The black hole photo looks amazing. Looks like it could be enhanced even more with deblurring and the proper deblur point spread function.
  8. This Wednesday: "Simultaneous news conferences are scheduled in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo." Any predictions? It'll be interesting if a black hole isn't a black hole.
  9. I can hardly wait till EHT releases the black hole photo this Wednesday.

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      You can get a general ballpark figure since there's a wide range of estimates for mass of Universe but using the relativistic escape velocity equation v = sqrt(2*G*M/r - (G*M/(r*c))^2), mass of 6e+53 kg, radius of 4.4e+26 meters you get an escape velocity of c, the speed of light.

    3. Silvestru

      Silvestru

      You should open a thread about this but generally speaking, it makes no sense to talk about escape velocity of the universe. Your calculation aside, you cannot escape to a point outside of the universe, that point would just become the Universe, also how did you get c as a velocity? Please explain. 

      The Universe is finite or infinite. We don't know which one for sure but logically you would need speed in much excess of c to "escape" the Universe either way. For one, the universe is expanding at an increased rate at a "speed" higher than c. Check special relativity. 

      Anyway please provide any published paper you might have that compares the universe with a black hole.

    4. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Given present figures the Universe escape velocity is equal to or near c given the known equation. Mainstream is starting to accept the idea of a multiverse consisting of many Universes, which would mean our Universe is not everything. Mainstream does not understand the mechanics that causes c to be it's present value of 299792458 m/s. For all they know it could be changing as the Universe expands.

  10. Mathematica & maple seem good at simplifying & solving long equations. Leaning towards mathematica. Any thoughts?

  11. Studiot, thanks for the response to a question that's not so important. So speculation indicates mainstream does not have such equations. That's good news for the person who has the equations, and for mainstream when a paper is published, right? But then again it took Einstein something like 20 years before mainstream paid much attention to him. Not that such equations would even be as important. Maybe they are.
  12. Sorry if this is not the correct area of the forum to post this. What if someone has equations derived only from E-field (no B-field) & doppler effect that correctly predicts the force between DC or AC carrying wire segments (including radio antenna modeling, radiation resistance, etc), inductance, charged particles inertia, and Relativity? Would that be of use and important? The closest I've seen are equations based on Relativity for infinitely long parallel wires. There are some papers that go into further details using Relativity, but they didn't show real examples other than infinitely long parallel wires using length contraction. Their equations gave me incorrect results for the force on DC carrying wires perpendicular to each other. Electromagnetism equations can correctly predict the force between DC or AC carrying wire segments (including radio antenna modeling, radiation resistance, etc), and inductance, but the equations require B-field, e.g. E' = γ(E + v x B)
  13. I like my sake the modern way, slightly chilled. It tastes less crappy that way.
  14. Prometheus, What about standard deviation? What's an acceptable sigma for this type of experiment? ps, please don't say six sigma. There might not be enough rice on Earth.
  15. Strange, The experiments that don't have equal amounts of rice in the jars or who leaving the jars open I would consider to be faulty experiments. Most of experiments I saw on youtube don't seem to fall in the category. As far as statistics, I believe that was brought up in my status post, "Try the experiment yourself. Do it a dozen times." IOW, do it however many times is necessary to get good statistics. BTW, yes I know the statistics part is a problem with the youtube videos.
  16. Can you give an example of how those experiments would give false results?
  17. The only possible issue I see with the rice experiments on youtube is in how they determine when the experiment is finished. Sure, they aren't using any method to determine when the experiment finished, but in nearly all of the cases I've seen on youtube it's pretty obvious. One jar is filled with black moldy rice. The other is near white. According to most of the videos, the hate and ignored jars become dark compared to the love jar. Therefore I would consider using a light meter to detect the overall change.
  18. I've watched a lot of these videos on YouTube. My recommendation is to focus on the intensity of the emotions, love or hate. The time duration varies a lot. Some people have seen it as little as a month, while others have taken 170 days. In this case, longer might be better. I mean, if the rice became moldy in one day in your setup, then one day of sending loving emotions to the rice may not have much effect. Also, the idea is to wait for one of the jars of rice to change by a noticeable amount. I'm curious what's the general plan if the experiment doesn't show the same results as found by dozens of YouTubers? Give up, or ask someone who's had good results to perform the experiment for you?
  19. Is everyone here afraid of the Rice Experiment? Real scientists are truth seekers.

    1. Show previous comments  8 more
    2. Phi for All

      Phi for All

      So you just like criticizing from the bleachers? Why are you here if not for science discussion?

      It sounds like you've encountered minor peer review before and had some ideas heavily criticized. I hope you realize the distinction between attacking ideas and attacking people. 

      So if I start a discussion for you, what is it exactly you'd like to talk about regarding "the Rice Experiment"? What does it claim to show? What is the big deal about this experiment, and why do you think people are afraid of it? If you don't couch the whole thing in terms of conspiracy, you'll remove a great deal of initial criticism.

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      I'd like to see academics researching the rice experiment and similar experiments in-depth. I believe that's what my status post was pointing out.

    4. Strange
  20. Correction: Humans season 2 begins in a few days in U.S., Feb.13 !!! Season 1 was about the awakened Synths fighting for survival. In season 2 they find romance & more. Love Niska

  21. "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." ... July 16, 1945 ... J. Robert Oppenheimer

  22. I wouldn't discourage scientists from spending a few minutes watching a video that has good ideas. His math is correct as far as I can tell, but he makes numerous incorrect interpretations. Moderator, in no place in the OP does it say I will give the public the New Physics or even higher dimensional photon emission math. This is not the thread for that. Close the thread if you wavy. Makes no difference to me. I come here not for myself. [Wavy=want]
  23. In due time. Like I said, I don't support a lot of his work, but he's on the correct path regarding the higher dimensional bubble universe. I would highly recommend all open-minded theoretical physicists watch that particular video for ideas.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.