• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fr0st2k

Theory - ultimate AI, at atomic level

61 posts in this topic

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.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

[quote name='Eralp' timestamp='1316169727' post='4862383']
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[/quote]

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1315836466' post='4860677']
[quote name='IADaveMark' timestamp='1314404419' post='4854258']
Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]


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).


[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1315836466' post='4860677']
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.
[/quote]

Prove it. ;)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='willh' timestamp='1316277506' post='4862836']
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).
[/quote]
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.


-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='willh' timestamp='1316277506' post='4862836']
[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1315836466' post='4860677']
[quote name='IADaveMark' timestamp='1314404419' post='4854258']
Incidentally, for those who cite "perfect knowledge of the laws of physics" need to google the "3-body problem" and the "butterfly effect".
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]


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).

[/quote]

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.

[quote name='willh' timestamp='1316277506' post='4862836']
[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1315836466' post='4860677']
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.
[/quote]

Prove it. ;)
[/quote]

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Eralp' timestamp='1316169727' post='4862383']
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.
[/quote]


Maybe someone already made that car racing simulation and it's us. Newton so call "science" do not predicts this either/
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1316779353' post='4865124']
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.[/quote]
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(tm) 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)

[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1316779353' post='4865124']
With a powerful enough computer you could even simulate them accurately[/quote]
You meant an [i]infinitely[/i] 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...

[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1316779353' post='4865124']The butterfly effect is exactly the same deal[/quote]
You mean a computer with [i]infinite [/i]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 [i]THAT[/i].


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.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
Lack of storage space and processing power.

A single person is composed of over [font="arial, sans-serif"][size=4]7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms (apparently). [/size][/font][size="2"][url="http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html"][1][/url][/size]
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 [font=sans-serif][size=2]septillion [/size][/font]bytes (or 741,153 '[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta-"]yottabytes[/url]'). (kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta)
You'd need to run some crazy insane [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:gamedev.net+mp3+beating+compression&sa=X&ei=-GR9Tu3cOqrc0QHG29DqDw&ved=0CCkQrAM&biw=1680&bih=949"]mp3 beating algorithm[/url] 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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
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)[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
You meant an [i]infinitely[/i] 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...[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
You mean a computer with [i]infinite [/i]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
Pro tip: If you miss one decimal, the butterfly effect will sooner or later kick you in the balls. Seriously. Try to debug [i]THAT[/i].[/quote]

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?

[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']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.[/quote]

There's always more to be said when talking about philosophical stuff like this.
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sooner123' timestamp='1317124769' post='4866398']
[quote name='Matias Goldberg' timestamp='1316836710' post='4865394']
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.[/quote]

No it wasn't established. The only issue is a mathematical one. We understand the physics of the 3-body problem perfectly.[/quote]

But the issue at hand is whether we can have an accurate simulation of a physical system, not if we can understand it perfectly.

[quote]At any given point we know the gravitational forces between any of the bodies.[/quote]

And we don't know how to integrate them.

[quote]You simply don't understand this.[/quote]

Now you are being rude and I stopped reading.

Please, somebody close this thread: It had little promise to begin with and I can't imagine anything good coming from it at this point.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0