Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • 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.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#41 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2531

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 26 August 2011 - 06:20 PM

Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".

On-topic, I should have locked this thread when I had the chance. Posted Image
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Sponsor:

#42 JohnGreek   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 August 2011 - 07:46 AM

In my very personal opinion trying to create the "Ultimate AI" is a waste of time. I don't mean that AI is a subject that should not be developed
since it's at a great level already( like TOPIO). In order to make it more clear think of a simple thing. What humans have that computers don't? Maybe a lot of things but i'll stick to the subject.
So a human has something called "thought" which it's quite easy to understand, but it cannot be abstracted with any kind of mathematical equation. You simply say "i want to go there" and there may be some
obstacles in the way but you "know" how to bypass them without saying "i have to do this maneuver" or jump, it's done right away without any comparing or calculation. So AI i simply a way to simulate thought with mathematics and equations
but real thought cannot be simulated that way. If you want a real example what i mean just test yourself by putting a simple problem to go somewhere but with obstacles on the way, what you do in order to go there?
And see if you can put down that thought with mathematics.
Although AI may be reach a level quite high enough, the "thinking with calculations" is not the real way of thinking so it's quite limited compared to human thought.
Again this is my personal opinion and i'm open to ideas.

- A programmer

#43 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2185

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 August 2011 - 10:21 AM

In my very personal opinion trying to create the "Ultimate AI" is a waste of time. I don't mean that AI is a subject that should not be developed
since it's at a great level already( like TOPIO). In order to make it more clear think of a simple thing. What humans have that computers don't? Maybe a lot of things but i'll stick to the subject.
So a human has something called "thought" which it's quite easy to understand, but it cannot be abstracted with any kind of mathematical equation. You simply say "i want to go there" and there may be some
obstacles in the way but you "know" how to bypass them without saying "i have to do this maneuver" or jump, it's done right away without any comparing or calculation. So AI i simply a way to simulate thought with mathematics and equations
but real thought cannot be simulated that way. If you want a real example what i mean just test yourself by putting a simple problem to go somewhere but with obstacles on the way, what you do in order to go there?
And see if you can put down that thought with mathematics.
Although AI may be reach a level quite high enough, the "thinking with calculations" is not the real way of thinking so it's quite limited compared to human thought.
Again this is my personal opinion and i'm open to ideas.

- A programmer

Just because you/we can't think of a way to "put down that thought with mathematics" doesn't mean it can't be done.
Human mind exists in the physical world and one day we will understand particularly everything about the physical world (at least everything useful) and it will be "put down with mathematics". (it doesn't mean we can model and predict the world perfectly, that's a different and impossible thing).

#44 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2531

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 29 August 2011 - 05:04 PM

So a human has something called "thought" which it's quite easy to understand, but it cannot be abstracted with any kind of mathematical equation.

Very over-generalized. I wrote a whole bloody book on abstracting thought to mathematical equations. One example:

Two identical objects that you desire. The price of one is $2, the other is $2000. Which will you purchase? I can generally abstract that out with the complex mathematical construct known as the "less than" operator.

You simply say "i want to go there" and there may be some obstacles in the way but you "know" how to bypass them without saying "i have to do this maneuver" or jump, it's done right away without any comparing or calculation.

You are wrong. Just because you aren't aware of the comparing and calculation doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In fact, there are numerous scientifically tested examples that discern how we do measure and calculate -- even on a subconscious level. Of course, sometimes our perception or belief systems are incorrect and we may, therefore, choose incorrectly. Still, there are calculations being done.

So AI i simply a way to simulate thought with mathematics and equations but real thought cannot be simulated that way. If you want a real example what i mean just test yourself by putting a simple problem to go somewhere but with obstacles on the way, what you do in order to go there? And see if you can put down that thought with mathematics.

This is what I do, sir. This is what I do. And AI programmers need to be able to do it as well.

I leave you with this comic:
equations.png
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#45 AntP   Members   -  Reputation: 143

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 September 2011 - 06:13 PM

I would suggest that an atomic representation of a brain is entirely unnecessary (for the purposes of artificial intelligence) when it is theoretically possible to create a completely functional model of the brain at a cognitive/architectural level. What we lack is a sufficient understanding of said architecture (and, more trivially to a theoretical discussion, sufficient storage). In fact neural modelling seems to be more useful as an aid in neuroscience research than in artificial intelligence research.

#46 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2949

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:00 AM

Just ignoring the obvious scaling problem, another problem with trying to "simulate reality" on an atomic level is that we have no idea how they _actually_work_.
Even less on how we can generalize this in any useful way to simulate them "in bunch"


We have lots of models describing how they seem to move and behave in 4d space, but we know thats just part of what an atom is, the model is incomplete, and no-one knows how it "really works", that's the reason they build things like the LHC.

So even if we did manage to simulate every atom in a brain to our current knowledge, we have no idea if this would produce anything useful or would just fall apart.

And again, just simulating what we _do_ know about atoms/molecules for just a few (thousand) atoms in a protein (as in Folding@HOME) is extremely costly.
Atoms are _not_ governed by "a few simple laws" like balls bouncing around.

#47 sooner123   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:07 AM

Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".

On-topic, I should have locked this thread when I had the chance. Posted Image


I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.

It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.

The original post was an obvious troll. Not made obvious only by the implication that we could simulate a planet, but that the best way to simulate intelligence would be on the atomic level, rather than the cellular level.

I'd also like to point out to another poster that thinks that machines won't be able to "think" that it is not the machine's failure to think but YOUR failure to understand what thought is.

You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.

(simulating a better one would result in a conscious entity capable of understanding that thought is a deterministic result. not an underlying, driving force)

#48 fr0st2k   Members   -  Reputation: 133

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:39 AM


Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".

On-topic, I should have locked this thread when I had the chance. Posted Image


I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.

It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.

The original post was an obvious troll. Not made obvious only by the implication that we could simulate a planet, but that the best way to simulate intelligence would be on the atomic level, rather than the cellular level.

I'd also like to point out to another poster that thinks that machines won't be able to "think" that it is not the machine's failure to think but YOUR failure to understand what thought is.

You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.

(simulating a better one would result in a conscious entity capable of understanding that thought is a deterministic result. not an underlying, driving force)



If you close your eyes and think of a person or picture...what is it youre seeing? That "picture" that you're imagining is not a picture...its a thought, but one that we interpret as a picture by using different parts of our brain to form it.

When you create an AI...how would they see that "thought" If you programmed them with knowledge of a particular item, could they use their programmed knowledge to picture the item without seeing it?

Makes me think of language...language is actually a barrier that slows our thought process down. If everyone was equally intelligent, perfect beings, we would have no need for language. It wouldnt be telepathy, it would be knowing the answer because its the right thing to do. If we had to communicate with people, we would instantly understand what they needed without exchanging words because we could interpret the need without having to talk.

its like a team game..either digital or athletic. you become a cohesive unit...multiple brains melding into one to the point where you can predict what the other is doing without talking.

pretty neat to think about.



#49 Net Gnome   Members   -  Reputation: 773

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:54 AM



Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".

On-topic, I should have locked this thread when I had the chance. Posted Image


I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.

It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.

The original post was an obvious troll. Not made obvious only by the implication that we could simulate a planet, but that the best way to simulate intelligence would be on the atomic level, rather than the cellular level.

I'd also like to point out to another poster that thinks that machines won't be able to "think" that it is not the machine's failure to think but YOUR failure to understand what thought is.

You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.

(simulating a better one would result in a conscious entity capable of understanding that thought is a deterministic result. not an underlying, driving force)



If you close your eyes and think of a person or picture...what is it youre seeing? That "picture" that you're imagining is not a picture...its a thought, but one that we interpret as a picture by using different parts of our brain to form it.

When you create an AI...how would they see that "thought" If you programmed them with knowledge of a particular item, could they use their programmed knowledge to picture the item without seeing it?

Makes me think of language...language is actually a barrier that slows our thought process down. If everyone was equally intelligent, perfect beings, we would have no need for language. It wouldnt be telepathy, it would be knowing the answer because its the right thing to do. If we had to communicate with people, we would instantly understand what they needed without exchanging words because we could interpret the need without having to talk.

its like a team game..either digital or athletic. you become a cohesive unit...multiple brains melding into one to the point where you can predict what the other is doing without talking.

pretty neat to think about.



Best advice, stay away from metaphysics or philosophy when working AI as they are not based in fact (not to be confused with conceptual facts in philosophies) or more importantly are not grounded in reality, which is where you have to make the AI funciton. Additionally, best to avoid the "perfect emulation" of thought or thinking and go for "best approximation" as perfect emulation requires magnitudes of processing power above the "best approximation".

Case and Point: SNES emulation can be perfectly emulated under existing hardware, however, it only has recently been possible to do so, mainly due to the amount of processing power required to perfectly emulate SNES hardware.

Another Example: IBM Watson. Watson is as dumb as a box of rocks, but appears intelligent due to the way it verifies and assembles evidence information based on the question asked and then ranks the results. Watson isnt a perfect emulation of question-answering. It is a current "best approximation", and even then Watson still takes 2800+ processors and Terabytes of Secondary Memory (RAM) to answer basic questions in 2-6 seconds (several hours on a lone processor).

Not saying to lower hopes or expectations, but to properly set them within the confines of what is possible. Build and reach from there. Serendipity is rare, Progress is unavoidable.

#50 sooner123   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:22 PM

<br>

<br>

<br>Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".<br><br>On-topic, I should have locked this thread when I had the chance. <img src="http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif"><br>

<br><br>I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.<br><br>It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.<br><br>The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.<br><br>The original post was an obvious troll. Not made obvious only by the implication that we could simulate a planet, but that the best way to simulate intelligence would be on the atomic level, rather than the cellular level.<br><br>I'd also like to point out to another poster that thinks that machines won't be able to "think" that it is not the machine's failure to think but YOUR failure to understand what thought is.<br><br>You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.<br><br>(simulating a better one would result in a conscious entity capable of understanding that thought is a deterministic result. not an underlying, driving force)<br>

<br><br><br>If you close your eyes and think of a person or picture...what is it youre seeing?&nbsp;&nbsp;That "picture" that you're imagining is not a picture...its a thought, but one that we interpret as a picture by using different parts of our brain to form it.<br><br>When you create an AI...how would they see that "thought"&nbsp;&nbsp;If you programmed them with knowledge of a particular item, could they use their programmed knowledge to picture the item without seeing it?&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br>Makes me think of language...language is actually a barrier that slows our thought process down.&nbsp;&nbsp; If everyone was equally intelligent, perfect beings, we would have no need for language.&nbsp;&nbsp;It wouldnt be telepathy, it would be knowing the answer because its the right thing to do.&nbsp;&nbsp;If we had to communicate with people, we would instantly understand what they needed without exchanging words because we could interpret the need without having to talk.<br><br>its like a team game..either digital or athletic.&nbsp;&nbsp;you become a cohesive unit...multiple brains melding into one to the point where you can predict what the other is doing without talking.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br>pretty neat to think about.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br><br>

<br><br>If the AI's neural network was structured the same as yours, they would "see" the same things you see when you "picture" something.<br><br>If it was given a neural network similar to a human infants, visual input into the optic nerve, auditory/gravitational input into the vestibular, etc. etc., then it would evolve into an adult brain that thinks, conceives, and pictures things the same way you do.<br><br>There is no distinction. You are seeing a difference that doesn't exist because you don't understand intelligence.

<div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat</a></div><div><br></div><div>Read this.</div>

#51 Eralp   Members   -  Reputation: 140

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2011 - 04:42 AM

I can't understand why the thread creator referred as a troll here. I exactly thought the same thing, maybe we will play car racing games where the fuel goes to the engine and burns there due to chemical laws everything is calculated in atomic size, or maybe FPS games where enemies have circularity systems, lungs etc. and when you shoot them everything is realistic.

Of course they don't seem reasonable right now since Moore's law won't be valid for too long, maybe we need quantum computers or a change in the silicon material to achieve that.

Concerning the AI thing, if we COULD compute ALL atoms' movements. It is the same thing as AI. Your neural network, brain, and its decisions may look like VERY COMPLEX to you but we have been kinda training them for years and years without many people trying to understand the basics behind our decisions and movements.

But before going up to the most complex neural network, lets think of a one cellular living. When you are aiming to understand 5th dimension it is better to start with understanding the transaction between 2nd and 3rd dimension. WHAT is exactly giving life to that cell, can anybody explain that? In my opinion all the things it makes are due to physical forces between atoms & molecules. The DNA can be treated as brain of the cell but as far as I know they created an artificial DNA and put it inside a cell and it continued "living". What if we replaced all the molecules in one cell? Or samely what if we copied all the molecules in one cell to another place, will it be cloned or won't they live due to lack of "soul" :) I think it will live. And then it goes up like what if we copied all the molecules in a human, what do you think it will be?

To sum it up in my understanding of the world and universe, EVERYTHING is based on physics, and physical laws. I am not talking about the ones we modelled right now, our laws can be wrong but afterall there is something according to which particles are "moving". We know that Newton's approximation was false, maybe Einstein's will not work under some conditions too.

When the forces are about atoms & molecules, we created chemistry to make approximations and create straight-forward rules, sometimes not so straight-forward but compared to simulating and calculating everything in sub-atomic particles they are very well straight-forward.When we taught chemistry we generally hear things like, under normal conditions this is true but else this law will fail. This is because as I said they are approximations but that is not something bad because we need to do them to actually achieve something and make use of chemistry. Nothing in chemistry can contradict with physical laws, and every chemistry law can be derived from physical laws, I think everybody agrees with me here.

Quick example: Law: Polar and Apolar liquids do not resolve in each other. When a question is asked you can use this law to answer and to back your thoughts. But you can very well derive it from physics. Since polar molecules have + and - poles, because an atom's protons is closer they pull the electrons to one side, they pull themselves like magnets and they stick with each other this makes the other liquid's molecules go up or down.

When we needed to examine the interaction of very big numbers of molecules and atoms we created biology.
One of its basic laws: The cell membrane is waterproof, of course not fully but in a reasonable way. This is due to molecular interaction between the molecules of the cell membrane and water molecules. You can go up the hierarchy till physics to explain this.

#52 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2531

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2011 - 07:28 AM

Posted Image
That was probably the best post in this entire thread. I should close this abomination now so we can quit on a good note.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#53 freeworld   Members   -  Reputation: 329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:42 AM

This may technically be off topic... But I'll throw an idea out there for ya. Something I've been constantly thinking about how I can make fun, for a good 3 years now.

The game has a single game board... imagine a 2D fish tank, without the fish. Then inside of it you got several hundred electrons, constantly moving and bouncing like bumper cars,each colored to match the player that owns the electrons. The idea behind the game is to take your electrons combine them together to make elements. So combine two electrons together and one becomes the nucleus, and the other attaches itself to the nucleus and together they are hydrogen or another element.

Because of the way elements and all that works if they get close enough to other electrons they can absorb them into the atom and become newer bigger elements. This way you can steal electrons from other players and turn them into your own. Then you can take combo of elements and combine them for reactions like explosions or fire that will affect the electrons around it. Either making the players electrons completely vanish or converting them to your own.

I exactly thought the same thing, maybe we will play car racing games where the fuel goes to the engine and burns there due to chemical laws everything is calculated in atomic size


I'd love to get a hold of the source code polyphony uses for the latest gran turismo, or even the last... since I have a feeling they dummy'd things down in the new one. I would assume they go as far as simulating the transfer of power from the engine to the sloshing of the torque converting to the rotation of the tranny, possible slipping between the clutch and flywheel to the rotational resistance of the drive shaft. The resistance from a rusted trailing arm, to the hick ups of bad timing cause from the worn bushing of the aft and tranny mounts. Then again they probably have a crap ton of shortcuts and tricks that look and feel real but aren't anywhere near how life works.
[ dev journal ]
[ current projects' videos ]
[ Zolo Project ]
I'm not mean, I just like to get to the point.

#54 willh   Members   -  Reputation: 160

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:38 AM


Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".


I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.

It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.



Not that Dave needs it, but I have to come to his defence here. His point was bang on-- mathematics is still a work in progress, as is physics (and by extension everything else).


You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.


Prove it. ;)

#55 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2531

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 18 September 2011 - 08:14 AM

Not that Dave needs it, but I have to come to his defence here. His point was bang on-- mathematics is still a work in progress, as is physics (and by extension everything else).

Yeah, I just let that one drop since he didn't understand where I was going with it. Considering I've written and lectured about the 3-body problem and the 'butterfly effect' before, I'm quite well-versed on it. I had posted in haste and not made the complete connection. My bad... and not worth it given the enormous theoretical weight of this thread.

Thanks, though.



Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#56 sooner123   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:02 AM



Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".


I do not believe you understand either of these problems then.

It's easy to simulate 3 bodies. With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately. The problem asks for a closed expression for their position(time). This is a mathematical failing. Not a physics failing.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal.



Not that Dave needs it, but I have to come to his defence here. His point was bang on-- mathematics is still a work in progress, as is physics (and by extension everything else).


Sorry but no. His point was that we couldn't accurately analyze three gravitationally bound bodies in terms of physics. This isn't true. At any point we can see the resultant forces, center of gravity, momentums of every component and subset of an n-body situation. We just don't have the mathematical tools to model them with closed expressions. His point was correct in that we do not have a perfect knowledge of physics. His example was incorrect. We do have perfect knowledge of the 3, 4, or even n-body problem. We just don't have the mathematical tools to model it with a closed expression.


You think your thoughts are under your control but they are just the deterministic result of the processing of your neural network. Simulating an equivalent neural network in software would have the result of a conscious entity of equal intelligence and sentience as yourself.


Prove it. ;)


Actually the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is akin to a religious claim.

If you can't understand it, try to understand what a neural network is. Understand the difference between mind and brain.

And if you do understand it, why play devil's advocate with me who is correct and stretch definitions and overlook inaccuracies to agree with the mod? It comes off as you being an enemy of free discussion of intellectual topics since you appeal far too much to authority.

#57 mrchrismnh   Members   -  Reputation: 82

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:29 AM

I can't understand why the thread creator referred as a troll here. I exactly thought the same thing, maybe we will play car racing games where the fuel goes to the engine and burns there due to chemical laws everything is calculated in atomic size, or maybe FPS games where enemies have circularity systems, lungs etc. and when you shoot them everything is realistic.

Of course they don't seem reasonable right now since Moore's law won't be valid for too long, maybe we need quantum computers or a change in the silicon material to achieve that.

Concerning the AI thing, if we COULD compute ALL atoms' movements. It is the same thing as AI. Your neural network, brain, and its decisions may look like VERY COMPLEX to you but we have been kinda training them for years and years without many people trying to understand the basics behind our decisions and movements.

But before going up to the most complex neural network, lets think of a one cellular living. When you are aiming to understand 5th dimension it is better to start with understanding the transaction between 2nd and 3rd dimension. WHAT is exactly giving life to that cell, can anybody explain that? In my opinion all the things it makes are due to physical forces between atoms & molecules. The DNA can be treated as brain of the cell but as far as I know they created an artificial DNA and put it inside a cell and it continued "living". What if we replaced all the molecules in one cell? Or samely what if we copied all the molecules in one cell to another place, will it be cloned or won't they live due to lack of "soul" :) I think it will live. And then it goes up like what if we copied all the molecules in a human, what do you think it will be?

To sum it up in my understanding of the world and universe, EVERYTHING is based on physics, and physical laws. I am not talking about the ones we modelled right now, our laws can be wrong but afterall there is something according to which particles are "moving". We know that Newton's approximation was false, maybe Einstein's will not work under some conditions too.

When the forces are about atoms & molecules, we created chemistry to make approximations and create straight-forward rules, sometimes not so straight-forward but compared to simulating and calculating everything in sub-atomic particles they are very well straight-forward.When we taught chemistry we generally hear things like, under normal conditions this is true but else this law will fail. This is because as I said they are approximations but that is not something bad because we need to do them to actually achieve something and make use of chemistry. Nothing in chemistry can contradict with physical laws, and every chemistry law can be derived from physical laws, I think everybody agrees with me here.

Quick example: Law: Polar and Apolar liquids do not resolve in each other. When a question is asked you can use this law to answer and to back your thoughts. But you can very well derive it from physics. Since polar molecules have + and - poles, because an atom's protons is closer they pull the electrons to one side, they pull themselves like magnets and they stick with each other this makes the other liquid's molecules go up or down.

When we needed to examine the interaction of very big numbers of molecules and atoms we created biology.
One of its basic laws: The cell membrane is waterproof, of course not fully but in a reasonable way. This is due to molecular interaction between the molecules of the cell membrane and water molecules. You can go up the hierarchy till physics to explain this.



Maybe someone already made that car racing simulation and it's us. Newton so call "science" do not predicts this either/
"It's like naming him Asskicker Monstertrucktits O'Ninja" -Khaiy


#58 Matias Goldberg   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3697

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:58 PM

Sorry but no. His point was that we couldn't accurately analyze three gravitationally bound bodies in terms of physics. This isn't true. At any point we can see the resultant forces, center of gravity, momentums of every component and subset of an n-body situation. We just don't have the mathematical tools to model them with closed expressions. His point was correct in that we do not have a perfect knowledge of physics. His example was incorrect. We do have perfect knowledge of the 3, 4, or even n-body problem. We just don't have the mathematical tools to model it with a closed expression.

a. It was already established one of the root causes was our lack of understanding the physics. And he pointed out we can't yet solve the 3-body problem.

b. The butterfly effect is a subset of the chaos theory. And when we go into Chaos Theory, we find out we don't know yet whether real life™ is deterministic or not. Should we scientifically prove God plays dice once just for fun in a while causing the universe to be non-deterministic, then our simulation becomes flawed, since PCs are inherently deterministic. We can try to play with entropy data from the outside or go multi core and hope the quantum mechanics break the determinism we need. But even then we wouldn't be able to introduce the same randomness "God" put into our life; being us unable to reproduce reality accurately. Furthermore, happen our world to be non-deterministic; many simulations would actually fail to produce life even if we knew all physics equations and had a 100% understanding. I'm cheering for a deterministic world therefore, just to think that there isn't something impossible; but we have to recognize there's a chance it may not be possible.

c. It's already established we need infinite processing power to simulate perfectly; since our simulated world may want to start it's own simulation just like we're trying. Or may be we shouldn't try it!!! Otherwise real life will stall until our simulation we just started stops (tip: if the scientist from simland decide to simulate their "real life", their world will stall too)

With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately

You meant an infinitely powerful enough computer? Unless all results are round numbers, "accurate" becomes truncated/rounded numbers with translated errors. You're waaaaay underestimating the butterfly effect, which leads us to...

The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal

You mean a computer with infinite RAM? Well then, since I have a very simple task for you: Compute the number PI with 100% accuracy. All decimals included. Then use it in your simulation.

Pro tip: If you miss one decimal, the butterfly effect will sooner or later kick you in the balls. Seriously. Try to debug THAT.


I miss when Gamedev automatically locket threads down after 2 weeks. Someone please lock this madness. One trivial comment bumps the thread after which soon 3 troll/flamewar/pointless/endless threads follow.

#59 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 21021

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 September 2011 - 11:13 PM

Why not?

Lack of storage space and processing power.

A single person is composed of over 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms (apparently). [1]
Even if you somehow manage to encrypt:
- The atom's position
- The atom's type
- The atom's velocity and direction
- whatever else

Even if you manage to encrypt that down to a single bit, that's still over 741,153 septillion bytes (or 741,153 'yottabytes'). (kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta)
You'd need to run some crazy insane mp3 beating algorithm dozens of times over to compress it down enough. Incidentally, this is the same problem holding us back from creating voxel games where 1 voxel == 1 pixel.
It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#60 sooner123   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Like
-2Likes
Like

Posted 27 September 2011 - 05:59 AM

a. It was already established one of the root causes was our lack of understanding the physics. And he pointed out we can't yet solve the 3-body problem.


No it wasn't established. The only issue is a mathematical one. We understand the physics of the 3-body problem perfectly. At any given point we know the gravitational forces between any of the bodies. You simply don't understand this.

b. The butterfly effect is a subset of the chaos theory. And when we go into Chaos Theory, we find out we don't know yet whether real life™ is deterministic or not. Should we scientifically prove God plays dice once just for fun in a while causing the universe to be non-deterministic, then our simulation becomes flawed, since PCs are inherently deterministic. We can try to play with entropy data from the outside or go multi core and hope the quantum mechanics break the determinism we need. But even then we wouldn't be able to introduce the same randomness "God" put into our life; being us unable to reproduce reality accurately. Furthermore, happen our world to be non-deterministic; many simulations would actually fail to produce life even if we knew all physics equations and had a 100% understanding. I'm cheering for a deterministic world therefore, just to think that there isn't something impossible; but we have to recognize there's a chance it may not be possible.


Ahh I see. The fact that you want the universe to be deterministic explains a lot about your weak understanding of chaos theory. Given that our universe is probably simulated with a finite resolution, I think determinism is unlikely.

c. It's already established we need infinite processing power to simulate perfectly; since our simulated world may want to start it's own simulation just like we're trying. Or may be we shouldn't try it!!! Otherwise real life will stall until our simulation we just started stops (tip: if the scientist from simland decide to simulate their "real life", their world will stall too)


Wrong. You can't know that and it hasn't been established. I don't know why you keep saying things that no one even knows are "established." It's more than likely that our universe is being simulated. And therefore it's being simulated to some finite resolution. Which doesn't require infinite processing. Again, it just seems like you don't understand the concept of simulating a universe. The universe "above" ours could easily have subtle or radically different laws that allow them to do far more efficient computing. Or we simply have further to go in computing than we realize.

You meant an infinitely powerful enough computer? Unless all results are round numbers, "accurate" becomes truncated/rounded numbers with translated errors. You're waaaaay underestimating the butterfly effect, which leads us to...


Wrong again. I didn't say perfectly. I said accurately. I was talking about how the more powerful your simulating medium gets, the more accurate the simulation. In a predator-prey simulation, the denizens move around in incremental finite steps. But they're not aware of this. Maybe if they got smart enough they could be. Like how we can analyze quantum mechanical phenomena now.

You mean a computer with infinite RAM? Well then, since I have a very simple task for you: Compute the number PI with 100% accuracy. All decimals included. Then use it in your simulation.


Not relevant for reasons stated above. If we simulate the universe down to an accuracy of x, then we only need to use pi to enough digits that given an exact diameter, we get a circle to the nearest x.

Pro tip: If you miss one decimal, the butterfly effect will sooner or later kick you in the balls. Seriously. Try to debug THAT.


Why do you assume the Butterfly effect is this end all be all force of nature that causes ripples ever outward from some origin? Why not wave dampening? Why not consider the case where some cause is eventually nullified. Stepping on that butterfly in the cretaceous era doesn't matter since a T-Rex steps there right after. Small deviations and changes? Maybe overruled by bigger ones.

You don't understand Chaos theory, Butterfly effect, or the concept of simulation.

But even if you were right. What's so crazy about the concept of a computer that doesn't miss a decimal? Or how do you know there aren't errors all the time? And they do ripple outward? So what?

I miss when Gamedev automatically locket threads down after 2 weeks. Someone please lock this madness. One trivial comment bumps the thread after which soon 3 troll/flamewar/pointless/endless threads follow.


There's always more to be said when talking about philosophical stuff like this.





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.



PARTNERS