Endy0816

Math is not only real, it is also irrational.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't know the details of the naval architecture of the Titan.

But it's design must be  (or perhaps should have been ?) subject to the same stability/bouyancy considerations as other submersibles.

The current speculation about the effect of loss of volume due to compression is relevant here.

A general submersible is compressed as it descends and the effects are neither negligible on bouyancy nor stability.

These are separate considerations.

In order to maintain stability the distribution of the variable mass component must be considered.

Some bouyancy force is derived not from Archimedes but from lift due to the motion of the hydroplanes.

These must be correct or the sub will enter an uncontrollable nose dive.

https://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/understanding-stability-submarine/

Yes, would normally trim or balance out everything so nose is slightly upward. Gives some small leeway in an emergency, such as flooding or a loss of propulsion.

The presure is rather disturbing to contemplate when you start hearing the boat groaning or see doors swinging freely in their frames after having been compressed.

Considering the number of accidents of even military submarines over the years, the CEO was insanely reckless in regards to safety.

It is a version of Pepper's Ghost:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

Probably you're more familiar with the 2d variety.

For 3D, you use multiple images to achieve the effect. Any image can be made to work though.

On 7/6/2023 at 8:32 AM, Genady said:

How often the CEO was piloting the submersible? Did he do it this time to show how much he trusts its safety?

Reading online was apparently typical.

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

Two identical observable universes would need to have all their constituent quantum particles in identical states.
Unfortunately, observable universes overlap.
If you live 20 km away from me, your observable universe extends 20 km further, in that same direction, than mine does.

Observable universes are not separate and distinct 'marbles'; they are a mathematical construct, based on the speed of light and expansion rate, centered on the observer.

Only overlap to a degree. We have past light/information reaching us, but the distance has continued to grow.

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, if there are uncountably many possibilities.

If the Universe is also infinite?

..and no I don't know the truth of the matter is either. My gut tells me it isn't possible, but that's hardly scientific.

8 hours ago, Genady said:

If a galaxy becomes not observable because of the universe expansion and disappears from the observable universe, where does it go?

PS. Perhaps I misunderstood the idea of "repeating volumes of the observable universe". In this case, just ignore my question.

Nowhere really. Light is just unable to reach us.

Imagine Universe as a jar filled with marbles, with each marble representing some observer's observable universe.

Depending on the size of the jar and number of possible marbles, one might reasonably expect to find two perfectly identical marbles.

13 hours ago, Genady said:

How is it possible considering that observable universe does not have a constant size but rather changes with time?

And considering that our observable universe differs from the one of a galaxy which is 10 bln ly from us.

It would change likewise.

Be a case of a low probability event becoming a certainty with enough attempts.

There could well be a physical law that prevents this from occuring too.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Regardless of how Mathematicians try to spin the question of the continuum vs granular universe, the fact remains that light, and therefore information, travels at the same speed in a vacuum in either condition.
This transfer of information is what determines the 'sphere of causality', otherwise known as the observable universe.
And Physics tells us that, aside from a long, long time ago, when the whole universe had to have been in causal contact in order to acheive thermal equilibrium ( and isotropy/homogeneity ), anything currently outside our observable universe cannot have any effect on us because it is no longer in causal contact.
IOW, the extent of the universe, either finite or infinite, outside the observable is of no actual significance.

But it could make for light conversation at your next dinner party.

Could be philosophical implications if there's repeating volumes of the observable universe or lack thereof.

Would definitely have to work back to the start and then forward again though.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

We can explain some of the universe.

So is length. We don’t know what length is in the same way we don’t know what time is.

 

So would any set of numbers.

“We” don’t think it was random. Babylonians used a base 60 numbering system, and there are reasons why this makes sense. (both 60 and 12 are divisible by a lot of numbers)

 

Can also count to 60 easily using just two hands.

https://ktwop.com/2017/08/19/counting-on-fingers-leads-naturally-also-to-base-60/

5(4×3)

Interesting to think that if we ever encounter an alien species we'd likely find a similar pattern.

6 hours ago, DimaMazin said:

Do you think that Obama and Trump want to help to Ukraine? And do you think that they have no influence in Biden's government and in The Washington Post? Then why this article is published in this concrete day?

Obama, yes. Trump, who knows?

Generally past Presidents don't interfere with the current one. You get 8 years and you're done.

Trump is bit of an outlier as he only served one term of his two and is eligible for reelection.

On 5/31/2023 at 9:49 AM, studiot said:

I know the official line is that so called AI programs are nothing more than glorified TMs

But is that really true ?

One of the characteristics of a TM is reproducibility.

That is a given input always results in an identical (and predictable in theory) output.

Yet we have noted that repeating a question to, say CHATGPT, sometimes results in several quite different answers.

A true TM should not exhibit this behaviour.

 

I wonder if what is happening is that when the AI program does its data search and subsequent statistical 'pattern matching' this happens because the dataset for comparison varies each time the search is conducted or that the same dataset is invoked each time but there are additional limiting or cutoff instructions in the program to mean that each time a different dataset is actually compared.

Pseudorandom values and past communication for that session are being used in the background.

Reactor is probably closest.

In more typical settings, you'll want to exhaust waste heat containing fluids for improved efficiency and lowered cost.

On 5/26/2023 at 6:05 PM, swansont said:

But it’s just going to be a re-hash of what already exists. And right now, from examples I’ve seen, not very good. Hollywood does the re-hash already, but I think people will get sick of it.

The jobs surrounding formulaic productions are what I think will be most impacted.

Actors, writers, crew, staff, any strictly report writing positions, some artists.

Granted can generate more novel results too if you change major elements or give it more material and a unique prompt to start with.

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

What specific jobs are in danger from a language algorithm? So-called AI interpolates from what it’s trained on. It does not innovate.

How is this different from the “automation will take all our jobs” cry that we’ve heard for decades now, and has fallen well short of the forecasted doom?

Probably any job that involves content production.

Big thing is that you can chain them together. For example, a language model feeding inputs to AI's that can provide images and/or video from that text.

With some prompts it could produce an entire movie, ad campaign, tv series, etc. May not be the next great masterwork, but the cost will be next to nothing.

Will probably still need human editors/producers, but they could do the work of a small army.

It's like we all suddenly have Asimov's book writing robot.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm not sure how you could conclude that. If the present USA was still part of the British Empire at the start of WW1, the Kaiser might have been deterred from starting it in the first place.. And if not, then the effective help would have been available on the first day, not after two years of war.  But if the USA was like Australia, separate, but in the commonwealth, then they would almost certainly joined at the start, and the Kaiser and Hitler would have known that. Which would maybe have meant that six million Jews and 25 million Russians might not have died in war. As well as millions of others. And in that scenario, Japan would never have attacked on it's own. 

It'd largely still be a Colonial economy, likely developing without the same access to oil and gold.

British were on good terms with the Hawaiian Monarchy too. Hawaii and thus Pearl Harbor attack could easily have never happened.

Troops might go, but would lack the same motivation and an economic powerhouse backing them.

At one point in our own history, we also appealed to a Prussian Prince to take over as monarch instead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_scheme

That could have really sent the later wars in another direction.

Just to put things in perspective, this is roughly what US's expansion consisted of.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

My own feeling about the whole process is that it's constantly mis-represented as something earth-shaking and noble, and yet the examples of Canada and Australia illustrate that if there had never been a war, things would probably have ended up better, not worse. Slavery would probably have been abolished much sooner, and the Indian nations would have possibly got a better deal, for a while at least, although it's impossible to say what would and wouldn't have happened. 

But this "birth of a nation" stuff is just propeganda. A nation would have just continued to grow, without a war, and would probably be twice the size now in space, as it would include all of Canada. 

I always took the release happening only because Britain finally saw the writing on the wall. Either had to reform or they knew now from experience that they would face costly rebellion(whether successful or not).

Majority of our growth also involved extensive land purchases from France, Spain, Russia and Mexico. Would have been a very different history if we couldn't expand westward freely or were constantly dragging Britain into further conflicts here.

I figure worked out well enough.

 Had the rebellion happened later, slightly differently or even not at all could have meant no effective help against Germany down the line.

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

I take your comments, yes of course, I'm just giving a different slant on it that's usually skimmed over, rather than attempting an objective comprehensive summary. But I think that some of the factors that you quote are more the things used to motivate people to fight, rather than real underlying political motivations. That's a common feature of most wars. 

For example, the weak Irish independence movement got a huge boost when the British executed the Easter Rising captives. One was pulled from a hospital bed and tied to a chair to receive the bullets. Before that, there was little appetite in Ireland for independence. After it, support just grew and grew. And the heavy handed tactics of the British just made it inevitable, in the end. But none of that was involved in the initial independence movement. 

There wasn't any initial push or movement for independence. That didn't happen until later.

Took a ton to make anyone want to leave with brutal tribal warfare going on and hostile European powers around.

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

Don't Americans make far too much of all that "Birth of a Nation" bullshit?

Canada and Australia did just fine without a war of independence, and anyway, the true motives for the war are being airbrushed out of existence. 

From my reading, the British government had put huge money into establishing the colony, and protecting the colonials, but the colonials didn't want to pay any share of it. And the other bone of contention was that the British wanted to expand westwards into the Indian lands more peacefully, by treaty etc, whereas the colonials wanted to drive the Indian nations off their lands by force and try to exterminate them. As they subsequently did. 

Also, the winning of the war itself was down to the intervention of the French, rather than a glorious struggle by the colonials. 

History in the US is about as twisted as what's taught in Japan. Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

That's not the whole story.

The British wanted to better control Colonial governors and so required higher taxes for paying them(previously paid directly by the Colonists), in addition to the cost of the war.

The East India Company was granted a rebate from the Tea Tax, effectively giving them a tea monopoly. The unhappy Colonists found out about it, resulting in their tea being dumped.

The following Intolerable Acts, Boston Massacre and lack of any representation in Parliament led to the war. They attempted to contact the King but this led nowhere.

Indentured Servitude used to be big early on. As contracts expired this resulted in landless individuals who obviously had much to gain from westward expansion.

The French contributions, Lafayette's at least, are fairly well known.

At several points there were wealthy or connected individuals involved. Ultimately poor governance and sheer distances led to most of the issues though.

3 hours ago, mathematic said:

following was asked of bingchat and chatcpt.  Both gave wrong answers.  Any thoughts?

----------------------

Geometry problem:  Semi-circle inside triangle:  Triangle with known length sides a, b, c where a is the longest.  Place inside the triangle a semi-circle with entire diameter resting on side a, which is horizontal.  The arc of the semicircle is maximum possible inside the triangle.
Known - triangle dimensions.  Unknown r (semi-circle arc radius) and x (distance along a from left end of a to center of diameter).  Find equations for r and x In terms of all possible triangles.

May be how the problem is being stated or just need to wait until the Wolfram Alpha plug-in comes out.

Can you please provide the answer here(for testing purposes)?

4 hours ago, Genady said:

If you go back to your first post on this question, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131410-how-does-chatgpt-work/?do=findComment&comment=1238821, and follow about a dozen or so comments after it, you will find several different wrong answers that the commenters got from the bot.

I've been hearing that they're coming out with a Wolfram alpha plugin for it.

That really seems more ideal until GAI is developed. Hand off the bits it can't or shouldn't do

1 hour ago, wtf said:

Glad you asked. By the way, what did Dennett say? 

So, computability is what algorithms do. The key thing about algorithmic computability is that the speed of the computation doesn't matter. So if you have a machine that is not conscious when run slowly, but is conscious when run quickly; then whatever consciousness is, it's not a computation. 

On the other hand there's complexity theory, which is concerned with the efficiency of a given computation. It may well be the case that if you run an algorithm slowly it's not conscious, but if you run it quickly it is. That just means that whatever consciousness is, it's not a computation. But it might be something else. 

One interesting idea is analog computation. It seems to me that the wet goo processing in our brains is more of an analog process. The operation of our neurotransmitters seems more analog than digital to me. As I understand it, people are interested in the question of whether analog systems can compute things that digital (ie discrete) algorithms can't. Perhaps our brains do something that digital computers don't, but it's still natural, and yet it's not necessarily quantum, if you don't like Penrose's idea. 

 

 

 

Ok then you agree that an elevator composed of switches and executing an algorithm, is not conscious. 

But neurons are a lot different IMO. Neurons are not digital switches at all. They're not on/off switches. They're complex biological entities, and the real action is in the synapses where the neurotransmitters get emitted and reabsorbed in ways that are not fully understood. It's not anything at all like how digital computers work. Digital switches are NOT like small sets of neurons, not at all. 

 

Ok, minor misunderstanding.

I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, but there's something to be said for the idea. If a small pile of atoms is not conscious and a large pile, arranged in just the right manner is, then where's the cutoff point? And if it's a gradual process, maybe an individual atom has some micro-quantity of consciousness, just waiting to be unleashed when the atom is joined by others in just the right configuration. Just an idle thought.

Oh, ok. I said that (in my opinion) the current generation of AI systems will be socially transformative but not existential. That means that these systems will profoundly change society, just as fire and the printing press and the Internet did. But they will not destroy us all, as some seem to believe and are claiming out loud these days. I don't think that will happen. We came out of caves and built all this, and I would not bet against us humans. We invented AI as a tool. A lot of people get killed by cars, another transformative technology. 3000 a month in the US, 100 every day. Did you know that? Another 100 today, another 100 tomorrow. Somehow we have accommodated ourselves to that, although in my opinion we should crack down on the drunk drivers. We're way too tolerant of drunks. Maybe a lot of people will get killed by AI.  Just as with cars, we'll get used to it. It's not the end of the world and it's not the end of humanity. That's what I meant by "transformative but not existential."

 

Hello Mr. Vat. I was a member on your other site under a different handle. Sad about whatever happened, it was a good site. 

 

Yes yes. I've used the same analogy myself. That a simulation of gravity does not attract nearby bowling balls. 

 

 

Ok, I agree that "information processing" is different. A simulation of information processing is not different than information processing. The gravity analogy breaks down.

But, I do think you may be doing that semantic equivalence thing ... My laptop processes information, my brain processes information, therefore there must be some analogy or likeness between how my laptop and my brain work. But this is not true. There's an equivocation of the phrase "information processing." In particular, in computer science, information has a specific meaning. It's a bitstream. A string of discrete 1's and 0's, which are processed in discrete steps. Brains are a lot different. Neurons and all that. Neurotransmitter reuptake. That is not a digital process. It's analog. 

 

 

Brains just aren't digital computers. And also, we're not talking about brains, but rather minds, which are different things entirely. Suppose we made a neuron-by-neuron copy of a brain out of digital circuitry. It might even appear identical to a brain from the outside. Give it a visual stimulus and the right region of the visual cortex lights up. But would it have a mind? I have no idea. Nobody does. But I think we should be careful with this machine analogy and especially with the "information processing" analogy. Elevators process information, as I've noted. They're not conscious, they're not intelligent. But they do "decide" and "remember." These are semantic issues. We use the same words to mean very different things.

I've heard of Tononi's IIT, where he has some mathematical function that figures out how conscious something is as a function of its complexity. That's literally all I know, which isn't much. 

I confess I do not understand this sentence. "If the formal properties .. can be fully accounted for ..." I understand. But what does it mean that the properties of the physical system must be constrained by the experience? That seems backward. The experience must be constrained by the mechanism, not vice versa. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding. Or not understanding.

Back to pansychism. Maybe an atom is a tiny little bit conscious, and all we need to do is put enough of them together in just the right configuration.

I remember the split brain experiments of the 60's, but I thought I read that the idea's been debunked. 

As more of a math person, axioms and postulates are synonymous to me. 

But then there's the flying analogy. Birds fly and airplanes fly but the mechanisms are radically different. Even the underlying physical principles are not the same. Planes don't fly by flapping their wings. The Wright brothers, as far as I know, did not study birds. It would have been a blind alley.

Why should machines think the way people do?

So you think it'd require using ternary(or other base) or an analog computer then?

What about using neurons on a chip? Is intelligence just a matter of scaling things up and/or creating hardware capable of performing the same?

So long as can repay on time, credit cards can be useful for saving money. Offers cashback, bonuses and zero interest offers. Works well in conjunction with earning bank/investment sign up bonuses that require a larger chunk of liquid cash.

Was asked roughly this at the interview for where I'm at now.

I said I was interested in the benefits package, company culture, and growing in skills. Do need to do some quick research so you know what you're talking about.

à

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Names aren't important.  Properly sized tumbrels are.

Never! I've recently become a huge believer in their positive impact on tourism.

Is funny that this needless fight seems to have taken much of the wind out of DeSantis's sails.