• Create Account

## Theory - ultimate AI, at atomic level

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

61 replies to this topic

### #1fr0st2k  Members

138
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:20 PM

I've had this thought for years now. I've discussed it with friends, but they didnt have much interest, so I thought i'd bring it here.

People have tried very hard to create AI, but from a top down approach. Why not start from a bottom up? At the VERY bottom; atoms.

We know how atoms interact. We know how electrons spin and swap around in atoms. We know chemical formulas, and how a hydrogen atom interacts with two oxygen atoms to form H20. We also know velocity of atoms, how speed affects friction and heat, etc. All the information for a complex computer program is there.

Has anyone tried programming this in 3d space?

If someone programs all the knowledge we have of atoms into a computer program, not only will it serve as an amazing repository for scientific information (fact checking, etc), but if done correctly, it will become a programmable petri dish of molecules.

Can you imagine?

The program becomes freeware, and everyone on the planet downloads it like google earth. You are given a pointer that transforms into a spraycan. You select what element you want to spray, the amount, and the velocity. You create 3d spheres, adjust hardness and then stick in a heat. You can adjust wind speeds to simulate velocity.

Some group develops dirt, another figures out water. a few years down the road, someone develops an atmosphere. Years later, we have a simulation of earth, built with molecules of dirt, water, air, o2, etc.

Then computers get to the point that they can process all this at 1million times speed, so that every second in our world is 1million seconds in theirs. We do nothing but set up the conditions of earth and watch as life blossoms by itself. Eventually creatures form, then intelligence. We then begin to talk to them through the computer screen. We wait for them to advance 1000 years past us. Then a million years, and steal their technology.

Why not?

### #2SriLumpa  Members

198
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:32 PM

Why not?

Well, because to simulate a few atoms, you need a computer that is a big lot of atoms.
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won. Until you find how to do that, you will never be able to simulate anything close to useful with a computer that could fit on the Earth.

### #3Tournicoti  Prime Members

704
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:33 PM

Hello

People have tried very hard to create AI, but from a top down approach. Why not start from a bottom up? At the VERY bottom; atoms.

Do you know 'connectionism' ? In this theory, 'atoms' are neurons, relationship between them is modelled with connections.
This theory is implemented thanks to neural networks.

Maybe you can have a look at this theory ?

### #4szecs  Members

2821
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 01:28 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

### #5SriLumpa  Members

198
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:04 PM

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

Yes that was my point I find it obvious, but I'd love to see attempts at "scientifically" proving this, though.

### #6Tournicoti  Prime Members

704
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:04 PM

Just to make sure I don't lead to misunderstanding concerning the connectionist approach :
The blue brain simulate 2 mm^3 of cortex (with a very high accurate neural model) , and it's a supercomputer

As far as I know, neural nets aren't used in game AI : the learning process can be very very long, i think the learning process can't be integrated in games for that reason

### #7fr0st2k  Members

138
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:09 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

### #8szecs  Members

2821
Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:13 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea. 1 million atoms is pretty much nothing. A 1000x1000x1000 cube is 1 billion.....
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
We couldn't simulate even one neuron at atomic scale.

### #9szecs  Members

2821
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:16 PM

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

Yes that was my point I find it obvious, but I'd love to see attempts at "scientifically" proving this, though.

I'm pretty sure it's proven. I tried to look for it, I remembered a Wiki page about it, but I couldn't find it. (If it needs to be proven at all. The pigeon-hole principle doesn't have to be proven it's so simple. Yet, a lot of idiots come up with an ultimate compressing algorithm *sigh*)

### #10fr0st2k  Members

138
Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.

it was a topic meant for discussion. to theorize on the subject.

I realize modeling WoW and the earth are 2 completely different things, yet you still dwell on it, whether you admit it or not.

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.

### #11Tournicoti  Prime Members

704
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:23 PM

And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.

Totally agree
Do you really know the whole state of the art in AI ? Who could pretend this anyway ?
You just 're-invent' the idea that governs connectionnism, (quite intuitive idea nowadays)

Please just stay modest . really no offense

### #12szecs  Members

2821
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:26 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.

it was a topic meant for discussion. to theorize on the subject.

I realize modeling WoW and the earth are 2 completely different things, yet you still dwell on it, whether you admit it or not.

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.

It's the most straightforward concept and a quite useless concept by itself. Just my comment.

(BTW, what does rendering has to do with the problem? Do you think rendering is the most problematic thing? Well, it's not...)

Sorry for being harsh, but I have a feeling that this will turn into an "all scientists and the science as we know it is wrong" thread pretty soon.

### #13Tournicoti  Prime Members

704
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:27 PM

Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence

### #14SriLumpa  Members

198
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:30 PM

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.

You seem to confuse rendering and simulating. The problem with Earth is not the size only, it's the complexity of what you seem to suggest. When you said "atom", if you really meant simulating the currently known physics laws for every atom, then you could hardly simulate even just your room with all the supercomputers on earth !

By the way, are we talking about AI or physics ? or maybe both (even more ambitious, at today's knowledge level).

### #15D_Tr  Members

362
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:34 PM

In a second year lab in the Chemical Engineering department, one day we ran a molecular simulation program. It simulated 1000 molecules and needed a couple of minutes or so to simulate some picoseconds of molecular motion. Molecular simulations like this are often used in science for various purposes (see for example Folding@Home), but the number of molecules modelled are very few, far fewer than those contained even in a human cell. Molecular simulation often used to calculate properties of pure substances or of mixtures. So the type of program you are talking about exists and is also widely used. About the A.I. on a molecular level, it is simply impossible with today's processing power. The most ambitious project I have heard of is the Blue Brain project where a supercomputer is used to simulate a slice of mammalian brain, but the simulation is not done on the atomic level. They reconstructed a slice of 10,000 neurons of a real rat brain and simulated it.

### #16SriLumpa  Members

198
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:34 PM

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence

I think the OP really meant "atom" in the physical sense, from his first post.
But I can't see any (reasonably close) relationship with intelligence either.

### #17fr0st2k  Members

138
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:36 PM

Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence

the amount of atoms is irrelevant to this topic. As is the prospect of programming the atom itself as if its something complex. It only needs to follow the rules of an atom. Its the same as creating 1000 AI robots on the screen at 1 time. They all have specific rules to follow. An atom itself does not think, its rules can easily be written.

then 2 atoms hit each other...their ai interacts, and you have the program. This is with 2 atoms..which according to your law, requires a very tiny pc.

### #18japro  Members

887
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:38 PM

Scientific simulations try to do this every day. Molecule and particle level simulations are actually pretty common. The problem is that even rather simple systems like a few million electrons in an accelerator take significant computing power and the simulations are far from real time. There are also higher level simulations of for example the whole heart and its neurons including an approximation of the human body that allow simulations of electrocardiography etc.
"Simulating the world" already is a significant part of science and a lot of bright minds are working on pushing the boundaries.

### #19fr0st2k  Members

138
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:38 PM

In a second year lab in the Chemical Engineering department, one day we ran a molecular simulation program. It simulated 1000 molecules and needed a couple of minutes or so to simulate some picoseconds of molecular motion. Molecular simulations like this are often used in science for various purposes (see for example Folding@Home), but the number of molecules modelled are very few, far fewer than those contained even in a human cell. Molecular simulation often used to calculate properties of pure substances or of mixtures. So the type of program you are talking about exists and is also widely used. About the A.I. on a molecular level, it is simply impossible with today's processing power. The most ambitious project I have heard of is the Blue Brain project where a supercomputer is used to simulate a slice of mammalian brain, but the simulation is not done on the atomic level. They reconstructed a slice of 10,000 neurons of a real rat brain and simulated it.

thank you for the first reasonable reply. I suppose your post alone helps prove the 3 other posters wrong, and I wish I was more aware of systems like this.

I will definitely look into the blue brain program, as it sounds extremely interesting.

### #20szecs  Members

2821
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:40 PM

Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence

Um... I'm not sure who you're addressing here.

Anyhoo, I was thinking about this a lot lately. More precisely, I was reading an "article" about alien lifeforms, and lifeforms that are not based on electromagnetism as ours (chemistry), but on gravity, or strong force or weak force. Could a whole galaxy become "intelligent"? What does it mean anyway? The best definition I can think of is the ability to manipulate the environment in "unusual" ways (what the fuck "unusual" means?). At least we could detect that. But how can a galaxy manipulate the environment in an unusual way, yet, obeying the laws of physics?

Sometimes I feel that being "intelligent" and this whole "soul" stuff is about defying these laws in a way. Free will seems to be defiyng the laws of physics. But that can simply be an illusion, because according to the principle I mentioned earlier, the brain cannot model itself accurately.

random rambling is over.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.