Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.
Post a reply

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 14:09:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'T')he only wankery with regard to this particular issue resides within the assertion that self-awareness doesn't exist.


This has been one of those chestnuts in philosophy over the decades - and in particular, during the computer science boom (beginning with say, Goedel, Escher, Bach and then taken up more practically by academic authors like Daniel Dennett).

But now, converging technologies are allowing ambitious new plans to map out what is known about the whole brain's normal operating functions. It hopes to shed light on the structural means by which the brain creates consciousness. I'm not among those who try to argue against exploration into the unknown. When you search, you find.

What is most fascinating to me about The Blue Brain Project is that the scientists there are putting together the initial "kernel" so that neuroscientific information can be stored in this supercomputerized standard brain model. The BBP will become a kind of global research facility.

So the BBP is sort of the global brain trying to access and figure out the individual brain. Who wouldn't find that interesting science to follow? I'm glad the documentary is coming out on it.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby rangerone314 » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 16:21:53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I like Searle.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 16:43:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'h')ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I like Searle.


Yeah, but that link merely states the obvious: the mechanisms of consciousness (whether C is real or a trick of other recursive process) remain a mystery.

...But a lot is known already about the functioning of nerves and nerve complexes. Not only can you store this accreting knowledge in a dynamic virtual model, you can test for brain phenomena or make guesses about brain phenomena and then check it against model action.

Building the model gives a clear direction to the task of compiling as much accurate brain data as possible. This will be a global repository/facility for the ongoing exploration of how the brain works; how nature has made creatures progressively more aware, intent and conscious. How far does that evolutionary path lead?

No one knows ...and this is just one way, one group has chosen to investigate the mystery and the possibilities.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby rangerone314 » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 17:12:11

Love them models. So accurate too, like for global warming and the Chilean tsunami that devasted Hawaii yesterday.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 20:19:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'h')ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I like Searle.

Its not something to brag about. Hes pretty much universally thought to make irrelevant, incoherent arguments about biological exceptionalism that are arguments from intuition. So what if the man in the box doesn't understand Chinese? It doesn't mean that the box isn't conscious, and it doesn't mean that it isn't a useful model. You might as well have a man in a universe room calculating all the superpositions of all the molecules in the universe and then make some argument for or against mathematical Platonism. Its an excursion into philosophical nonsense that doesn't answer the more useful question. Its not can machines be conscious, because no one can answer the question if anyone else is conscious. Its can machine's perform actions of human level thought.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ove them models. So accurate too, like for global warming and the Chilean tsunami that devasted Hawaii yesterday.


They're not analogous. You're not making a model to predict reality but to model effects. We're not trying to make a model of some specific brain to figure out what they'll have for dinner in three weeks. We're making models to analyze how neural circuitry responds and to compute its effects. In the short term its applications will be drug design and neurological research for medicine and in the long term we'll use such models (probably far simplified from the molecular/cellular level we're using today) for artificial intelligence applications.

Its more along the lines of VirtualBox, which is a model of a computer that does useful work. Bring up a calculator application and its a model of a calculator. Not a particularly good model, because it very crudlely models buttons and omits modeling all the dirt and grit and most of the electrical circuitry of real calculators, but you dont need all that to do useful work. Its likewise very unlikely we'll have to model all the dirt and grit in the human brain to do computation. We do need to model all that stuff for drug design however, which is why its very computationally intensive right now.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 02 Mar 2010, 04:27:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're missing some basic concepts of information theory. You can model any analog system on a digital system to however many orders of magnitude as you like. There isn't any inherent advantage to running things on analog systems from an information theoretic view, and really are often at a disadvantage.

Information theory itself has quite a hurdle to explain creation of information by life or in more general terms creation of complex structures in Universe.

In general as per current understanding of this theory an information is subjected to conservation laws very much like mass/energy, electric charge etc.
It cannot be created out of nowhere and it also cannot be destroyed (even by BH).
Read about pure and mixed quantum states for more details.

Yet with evolution of Universe complex systems have been formed (galaxies, their clusters, stellar systems etc) and so-called entropy gaps are widening (with progress of time Universe seems to be more and more out of thermodynamical equilibrium and not near that).

On the other hand life appeared out of nowhere and an information required for its emergence, reproduction and proliferation have been materialized somehow from nothing, contrary to expectations of information theory.
Believers have easy explanation for this phenomenons but I am not one of them.

So as per current understanding of matters it seems that information theory at our disposal is not an adequate tool to investigate issues related to life, creative machines or even evolution of Universe.
Perhaps some progress can be ultimately made in this area but judging abilities of digital/analogue systems to become creative base on current understanding of information theory seems to be a very premature approach.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're missing the fact that the universe obeys predictable physical laws.

These are known, existing physical laws which we learned about base on experiment and observation.
Saying that they are predictable, is nevertheless plain foolish.

There can be plenty of Universes, each with its own distinct set of physical laws.
Even our Universe can undergo unpredictable reset of physical laws known as quantum vacuum phase transition and even more importantly already undergone such a change when inflation era was finished.
You may negate existence of this inflation era in the past but nearly all physicists and cosmologists will disagree with you.
Without inflation era large scale uniformity of Universe is next to impossible to explain in elegant way.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese laws are expressible in mathematics and that means you can make arbitrarily accurate models in principle ab initio.

"Perfect theory incorporating concept of numbers requires infinite number of true but unprovable statements to be consistent and complete".
Which mathematician proposed and proven this?
Godel?
Even maths have its own limitations within itself, therefore I have no reason to believe that it can model physical world with arbitrary accuracy.
Interested about details?
Here is a reading to begin with:
Godel's theorem
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou seem to be asserting that there is some magic creativity that can't be modeled in mathematics that only exists in the physical world, and we have no reason to expect thats the case.

So read above.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're arguing from intuition.
You also do so and in any case it is irrelevant.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby rangerone314 » Tue 02 Mar 2010, 09:07:07

I'll believe we can create TRUE intelligence and consciousness when we can actually create life from inanimate molecules like the primordial soup that life apparently sprang from billions of years ago.

If we can't even crawl, why should I believe we can tango?
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 02 Mar 2010, 18:57:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're missing some basic concepts of information theory. You can model any analog system on a digital system to however many orders of magnitude as you like. There isn't any inherent advantage to running things on analog systems from an information theoretic view, and really are often at a disadvantage.

Information theory itself has quite a hurdle to explain creation of information by life or in more general terms creation of complex structures in Universe.

In general as per current understanding of this theory an information is subjected to conservation laws very much like mass/energy, electric charge etc.
It cannot be created out of nowhere and it also cannot be destroyed (even by BH).
Read about pure and mixed quantum states for more details.

You seem to be misunderstanding information theory here with how it relates to quantum mechanics, while this is largely true, the implications aren't what you believe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')et with evolution of Universe complex systems have been formed (galaxies, their clusters, stellar systems etc) and so-called entropy gaps are widening (with progress of time Universe seems to be more and more out of thermodynamical equilibrium and not near that).

This is an intuition based argument that doesn't hold with the real world. Models with gravity prevent naive thermodynamic equilibrium.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand life appeared out of nowhere and an information required for its emergence, reproduction and proliferation have been materialized somehow from nothing, contrary to expectations of information theory.
Believers have easy explanation for this phenomenons but I am not one of them.

Now you're making stuff up. There isn't any more information in a universe with life than a universe without life. A disk of random data has the same amount of data as a disk with newspaper articles on it, and the Kolmogorov complexity is significantly higher for the one with random data.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o as per current understanding of matters it seems that information theory at our disposal is not an adequate tool to investigate issues related to life, creative machines or even evolution of Universe.
Perhaps some progress can be ultimately made in this area but judging abilities of digital/analogue systems to become creative base on current understanding of information theory seems to be a very premature approach.
That's because you obviously don't understand the basics of information theory.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're missing the fact that the universe obeys predictable physical laws.
These are known, existing physical laws which we learned about base on experiment and observation.
Saying that they are predictable, is nevertheless plain foolish.

There can be plenty of Universes, each with its own distinct set of physical laws.
Even our Universe can undergo unpredictable reset of physical laws known as quantum vacuum phase transition and even more importantly already undergone such a change when inflation era was finished.
You may negate existence of this inflation era in the past but nearly all physicists and cosmologists will disagree with you.
Without inflation era large scale uniformity of Universe is next to impossible to explain in elegant way.
I'm quite sure you're being obtuse and contrary; Saying the universe follows predictable physical laws isn't in the slightest bit controversial.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese laws are expressible in mathematics and that means you can make arbitrarily accurate models in principle ab initio.
"Perfect theory incorporating concept of numbers requires infinite number of true but unprovable statements to be consistent and complete".
Which mathematician proposed and proven this?
Godel?
Yes. And its one of the most misunderstood theorems, and its not in the least bit related to the discussion at hand except in the most holistic sense.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven maths have its own limitations within itself, therefore I have no reason to believe that it can model physical world with arbitrary accuracy.
Interested about details?
Here is a reading to begin with:
Godel's theorem
I'm quite sure I understand his incompleteness theorems, and their implications, and I'm quite sure you don't. Part of the problem here is that in layman's introductions to the incompleteness theorems, words like 'true' are tossed around far to lightly, leading to some confused introductions. While the incompleteness theorems are important, they don't say what many people think they say. It just says there are undecidable statements in any consistent formal system.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou seem to be asserting that there is some magic creativity that can't be modeled in mathematics that only exists in the physical world, and we have no reason to expect thats the case.
So read above.
Right. Are you suggesting that an incompleteness theorem that states there are undecidable mathematical statements implies anything about creativity? I'm sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 02 Mar 2010, 19:58:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'R')ight. Are you suggesting that an incompleteness theorem that states there are undecidable mathematical statements implies anything about creativity? I'm sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here.


EU always pretends to be a high-level expert on any given subject under debate. Even if you stomp on her once or twice, it get's boring after that.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 03 Mar 2010, 05:00:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')et with evolution of Universe complex systems have been formed (galaxies, their clusters, stellar systems etc) and so-called entropy gaps are widening (with progress of time Universe seems to be more and more out of thermodynamical equilibrium and not near that).

This is an intuition based argument that doesn't hold with the real world. Models with gravity prevent naive thermodynamic equilibrium.

Actually it is statement of facts: Universe is increasingly out of thermodynamic equilibrium with progress of time as per classical thermodynamics.

Once one wish to fiddle with gravity input, s/he will realize that only gravitationally bound structures (largest are galaxy clusters) are going to reach thermodynamical equilibrium, sufficient (and very considerable time given).
That is under assumption of absence of so-called phantom energy, related to already recognized dark energy.
Quite hot topic in cosmology at the moment.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow you're making stuff up. There isn't any more information in a universe with life than a universe without life. A disk of random data has the same amount of data as a disk with newspaper articles on it, and the Kolmogorov complexity is significantly higher for the one with random data.

You are trying to evade certain issue.

Information in the system is also proportional to its entropy, so objects of low entropy do not contain as much information as objects of high entropy.
So for example a perfect crystal at 0K enjoys entropy 0 and contain next to nil information.

So for example early Universe (in particular pre-inflationary one) was a setup of very low entropy, and so it was not holding much information in it.
Nevertheless our current Universe is a one of very high entropy, so it holds substantial amount of information in it.
So from where this information came?
How information theory explains it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m quite sure you're being obtuse and contrary; Saying the universe follows predictable physical laws isn't in the slightest bit controversial.

I assumed that you was suggesting that physical laws are predictable in the sense that these laws could be calculated a priori and any emerging Universe which have happened to come to existence would have to follow them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es. And its one of the most misunderstood theorems, and its not in the least bit related to the discussion at hand except in the most holistic sense.
It is relevant in the sense that mathematics itself has its own limitations and its language by definition is imperfect.
An attempt to make it perfect would deliver faith based system with infinite number of axioms.
Therefore it cannot be expected to deliver arbitrary accuracy in attempted modeling of physical world.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')art of the problem here is that in layman's introductions to the incompleteness theorems, words like 'true' are tossed around far to lightly, leading to some confused introductions. While the incompleteness theorems are important, they don't say what many people think they say. It just says there are undecidable statements in any consistent formal system.
Undecidable statements are one aspect but requirement of infinite number of axioms required to deliver complete and consistent theory is quite a different aspect.
You are confusing these two or you attempting to be obtrusive here.
Axiom (true but unprovable statement) is not equivalent with undecidable statement.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight. Are you suggesting that an incompleteness theorem that states there are undecidable mathematical statements implies anything about creativity? I'm sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here.
Incompletness theorem implies that maths may not describe physical world with arbitrary accuracy because it is imperfect in itself.
I suggest that issues related to creativity may evade such attempt of formal description/modeling.
Up to now they did.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'E')U always pretends to be a high-level expert on any given subject under debate. Even if you stomp on her once or twice, it get's boring after that.
On the other hand you are parroting articles from various topics without slightest understanding of contents projected there.
Sometimes I have an impression that you are a netbot.

Yet you are probably not.
You are creative to certain degree - for example you are helping to create various WTC conspiracy theories.
What was the last one... let me think...
That WTC was brought down by termites? :-D
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 03 Mar 2010, 07:47:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')et with evolution of Universe complex systems have been formed (galaxies, their clusters, stellar systems etc) and so-called entropy gaps are widening (with progress of time Universe seems to be more and more out of thermodynamical equilibrium and not near that).

This is an intuition based argument that doesn't hold with the real world. Models with gravity prevent naive thermodynamic equilibrium.

Actually it is statement of facts: Universe is increasingly out of thermodynamic equilibrium with progress of time as per classical thermodynamics.

Once one wish to fiddle with gravity input, s/he will realize that only gravitationally bound structures (largest are galaxy clusters) are going to reach thermodynamical equilibrium, sufficient (and very considerable time given).
That is under assumption of absence of so-called phantom energy, related to already recognized dark energy.
Quite hot topic in cosmology at the moment.

You're not being very lucid here. Are you referring to macroscopic structures? What do you think you mean by thermodynamic equilibrium? I'm not sure you fully understand what you're talking about here, because many people assume that star formation and structure formation are in opposition to naive ideas about thermodynamic equilibrium.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow you're making stuff up. There isn't any more information in a universe with life than a universe without life. A disk of random data has the same amount of data as a disk with newspaper articles on it, and the Kolmogorov complexity is significantly higher for the one with random data.

You are trying to evade certain issue.

Information in the system is also proportional to its entropy, so objects of low entropy do not contain as much information as objects of high entropy.
So for example a perfect crystal at 0K enjoys entropy 0 and contain next to nil information.

Not true over time. The principle of unitarity says there's as much information at the beginning of a process as at the end. Its why the black hole information paradox is interesting.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o for example early Universe (in particular pre-inflationary one) was a setup of very low entropy, and so it was not holding much information in it.
Nevertheless our current Universe is a one of very high entropy, so it holds substantial amount of information in it.
So from where this information came?
How information theory explains it?

Information theory is silent on the subject, its the principle of unitarity that says that information is conserved; It also says that there's as much information at the beginning as afterwords. As is these are macroscopic issues that have very little to do with the subject at hand, however much you think they're relevant.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es. And its one of the most misunderstood theorems, and its not in the least bit related to the discussion at hand except in the most holistic sense.
It is relevant in the sense that mathematics itself has its own limitations and its language by definition is imperfect.
An attempt to make it perfect would deliver faith based system with infinite number of axioms.
Therefore it cannot be expected to deliver arbitrary accuracy in attempted modeling of physical world.
I seriously suggest you learn a bit more about mathematics before musing more on this topic. For a start, mathematical theory encompasses a universe much larger than the physical world. Most of the 'limits' in mathematics (indeed most of mathematics itself) have almost nothing to do with any physical constructs we could ever encounter. Whereas modeling of the universe relies largely on mathematics that is centuries old and not even close to being independent of ZFC. Just look at independent axioms of ZFC or unproven conjectures. This is largely established mathematics here. The problems we have in mathematical physics are largely not because of undecidability but because of intractability.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')art of the problem here is that in layman's introductions to the incompleteness theorems, words like 'true' are tossed around far to lightly, leading to some confused introductions. While the incompleteness theorems are important, they don't say what many people think they say. It just says there are undecidable statements in any consistent formal system.
Undecidable statements are one aspect but requirement of infinite number of axioms required to deliver complete and consistent theory is quite a different aspect.
You are confusing these two or you attempting to be obtrusive here.
Axiom (true but unprovable statement) is not equivalent with undecidable statement.
Actually, it is. Some large examples: The Axiom of Choice, the continuum hypothesis. I challenge you to find one true statement that is independent of ZFC. I'm suggesting that you don't actually understand mathematical logic, because the whole concept of truth is quite mushy. We investigate the consequences of axioms in most formal systems. There are some paradoxes also; The Goldbach conjecture, if undecidable is also true. But the whole concept of it being undecidable means its also impossible for it to ever be true as well.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight. Are you suggesting that an incompleteness theorem that states there are undecidable mathematical statements implies anything about creativity? I'm sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here.
Incompletness theorem implies that maths may not describe physical world with arbitrary accuracy because it is imperfect in itself.
All that you need to model most of the world with arbitrary accuracy is the standard model and gravity. Sure, there are problems with calculating with lattice quantum chromodynamics because of the fermion sign problem. Are you actually suggesting to model brain activity we need to fully model quark interaction or even use the full Schrodinger equation? Do you actually find that the least bit plausible?
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Thu 04 Mar 2010, 03:43:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're not being very lucid here. Are you referring to macroscopic structures?

Perhaps you are actually not very lucid.
Galaxy clusters which were mentioned are certainly macroscopic structures.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do you think you mean by thermodynamic equilibrium?

I mean slightly generalized classic thermodynamic.
So the system would no longer have extractable energy in it, including no available nuclear energy.
So in principle world in equilibrium would entail vacuum of space, leptons, iron-56 atoms (if barionic number is conserved) or no baryonic matter at all if it is not, it would not contain BH (as these would evaporate) etc.

Alternatively thermodynamic equilibrium (and also maximum possible entropy in every point of space) would be achieved under Big Rip scenario, (my pet scenario of the future).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not sure you fully understand what you're talking about here, because many people assume that star formation and structure formation are in opposition to naive ideas about thermodynamic equilibrium.

That is their problem.
Formation of stars helps to dissipate "potential nuclear energy" in the system and plenty of entropy is produced in the process.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot true over time. The principle of unitarity says there's as much information at the beginning of a process as at the end. Its why the black hole information paradox is interesting.

Nevertheless this does not explain how all this information was present in early Universe of very low entropy.
Limitation of this particular law?
It is self evident that information storage ability of the system is proportional to entropy of it.
Low entropy systems cannot contain much information.

Are you claiming for information to be separate entity capable to exist in absence of any sort of matter?
If so, then good luck with that argument.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o for example early Universe (in particular pre-inflationary one) was a setup of very low entropy, and so it was not holding much information in it.
Nevertheless our current Universe is a one of very high entropy, so it holds substantial amount of information in it.
So from where this information came?
How information theory explains it?

Information theory is silent on the subject, its the principle of unitarity that says that information is conserved; It also says that there's as much information at the beginning as afterwords.
So perhaps we might face a limitation of information theory in its current understanding?
May be even some trouble with Unitarity Principle (that would really be something...)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s is these are macroscopic issues that have very little to do with the subject at hand, however much you think they're relevant.
Macroscopic issues are very relevant indeed if one want to discuss for example concept of time.

Nevertheless you are also missing an important point:
Pre-inflationary Universe was not really a macroscopic object.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or a start, mathematical theory encompasses a universe much larger than the physical world. Most of the 'limits' in mathematics (indeed most of mathematics itself) have almost nothing to do with any physical constructs we could ever encounter.
So I am still waiting for this long trumpeted theory of everything.
And you know what, I really expect mathematicians and physicists to succeed, time, budget and civilization duration permitting.

And I expect that they will get far more than they are betting for.
They will get dozens of such theories, all about equally plausible but no experimental means will exist to verify which one, if any, is true (or closest to truth).

So perhaps we are observing an interesting process of formation of modern versions of religions.

Each of these will have its own followers hating and belittling each other.
Sad state of affairs really.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll that you need to model most of the world with arbitrary accuracy is the standard model and gravity.
Standard model is a very successful but yet arbitrary theory with a dozen of constants drawn out of hat.
It also involves plenty of mathematical butchery otherwise known as renormalization to work.
You know, this tossing of infinities, subtracting one from another etc.
Very inelegant.
Anyway standard model is rather relevant to relatively low energies, physicists are actually expecting it to fail at higer energy range.
So we have various GUTs, SUSYs etc.
Anyway, my intuition tell that LHC will fail to deliver Higgs boson, but who knows?
Not too long waiting left, I suppose.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure, there are problems with calculating with lattice quantum chromodynamics because of the fermion sign problem.
There are far greater problems with related quantum field theory.
This famous error of 100 orders of magnitude related to energy of vacuum of space.
It seems that physicists like sometimes to swipe elephant under the carpet and pretend that it doesn't even exist.

Now gravity...
Well we desperately need this quantum gravity theory, but all what we are getting up to date are tons of mathematical onanizm.
Quite an achievement on its own right but rather of restricted usefulness (to say it mildly), if applied to physical world.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you actually suggesting to model brain activity we need to fully model quark interaction or even use the full Schrodinger equation? Do you actually find that the least bit plausible?
Personally I do not expect that quantum effects have much more to do with brain function than to serve as irrelevant background.
I expect other, unspecified yet troubles, perhaps related to information theory and its shortcomings.
However some scientists do.
Bohm?
OK, you will say that he got mad with time (btw it is a common fate of mathematicians).
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 04 Mar 2010, 05:26:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')So in principle world in equilibrium would entail vacuum of space, leptons, iron-56 atoms (if barionic number is conserved) or no baryonic matter at all if it is not, it would not contain BH (as these would evaporate) etc.

I'm nitpicking here; As an aside Ni-62 has a higher binding energy than Fe-56, and neutron stars have lower overall energy than any arbitrary collection of nucleons. and so over very long periods of time sufficiently massive bodies will tunnel into neutron stars, (if we make some naive assumptions that probably turn out to be irrelevant.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot true over time. The principle of unitarity says there's as much information at the beginning of a process as at the end. Its why the black hole information paradox is interesting.

Nevertheless this does not explain how all this information was present in early Universe of very low entropy.
Limitation of this particular law?
It is self evident that information storage ability of the system is proportional to entropy of it.
Low entropy systems cannot contain much information.

Are you claiming for information to be separate entity capable to exist in absence of any sort of matter?
If so, then good luck with that argument.

No. I'm not claiming I fully understand information entropy in physical systems; Its not really my area of expertise. I do think that you might be misunderstanding it however. The connection between information and work is seen in a Maxwellian demon. If you have the information to open a shutter at a certain time you can extract work from a system and information literal is work and can be used to reverse thermodynamic entropy, and that's where the connection comes in.

I'm not a theorist or a physicist, so my understanding may be flawed, but I might suggest that you're seeing a paradox that doesn't actually exist.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nformation theory is silent on the subject, its the principle of unitarity that says that information is conserved; It also says that there's as much information at the beginning as afterwords.

So perhaps we might face a limitation of information theory in its current understanding?
May be even some trouble with Unitarity Principle (that would really be something...)
I might suggest there is a trouble in your understanding of both of these issues. There are people brighter than you or me that have been working on these issues for years, and their problems with it are with black holes apparently destroying information in current models, not creeping rise if entropy as information.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s is these are macroscopic issues that have very little to do with the subject at hand, however much you think they're relevant.
Macroscopic issues are very relevant indeed if one want to discuss for example concept of time.[/quote]
Only in the most holistic sense. Usually they just confuse the issue and get off topic... Now sure information and its relationship to thermodynamics, cosmology, all these are fascinating subjects which honestly has very little of practical importance when discussing making crude models for computation.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll that you need to model most of the world with arbitrary accuracy is the standard model and gravity.
Standard model is a very successful but yet arbitrary theory with a dozen of constants drawn out of hat.
25 or 26 at last count, depending on how you slice up the pie. Sad or wonderful depending on your viewpoint.

Sure its crude, but its also enormously successful and accurate for nearly all the real world modeling we're ever going to do. Most of the time we don't even have to do relativistic wave equations, and the Schrodinger equation is more than sufficient; Certainly the case for protein modeling. Gold might not come out the right color however...


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you actually suggesting to model brain activity we need to fully model quark interaction or even use the full Schrodinger equation? Do you actually find that the least bit plausible?
Personally I do not expect that quantum effects have much to do with brain function.
I expect other, unspecified yet troubles, perhaps related to information theory and its shortcomings.
I'm really quite unsure why you think this. We have no reason to believe that doing brain simulation is obstructed by any theoretical problems in understanding. That doesn't mean there isn't quite a lot of work to be done, certainly. After all we have achieved successful modeling of c elegans locomotion, and current work on biologically consistent neocortical columns isn't running into major theoretical stumbling blocks.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Bluebrain | Year One" by Couple 3 Films

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 10 Mar 2010, 03:54:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')I'm nitpicking here; As an aside Ni-62 has a higher binding energy than Fe-56

Interesting.
It is Fe-56 which is usually quoted in various publications.
Perhaps because it is a practical end for the purpose of supernova considerations.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd neutron stars have lower overall energy than any arbitrary collection of nucleons. and so over very long periods of time sufficiently massive bodies will tunnel into neutron stars, (if we make some naive assumptions that probably turn out to be irrelevant.)

What would be a theoretical minimal mass allowing such conversion?
You need to generate gravitational pressures allowing to revert beta-decay.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o. I'm not claiming I fully understand information entropy in physical systems; Its not really my area of expertise.

Neither I am an expert on this.
However basic issues related to this theory should be possible to discuss by non experts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he connection between information and work is seen in a Maxwellian demon. If you have the information to open a shutter at a certain time you can extract work from a system and information literal is work and can be used to reverse thermodynamic entropy, and that's where the connection comes in.

Maxwell's demon is running into information storage capacity problems as time pass.

Entropy is often seen as used information storage capacity of the system, eg a system of maximum possible entropy cannot register any more information.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not a theorist or a physicist, so my understanding may be flawed, but I might suggest that you're seeing a paradox that doesn't actually exist.
I just cannot find any sensible explanation, how current amount of information could be stored in early low entropy Universe, particularly in pre-inflationary Universe.
Low entropy implies ability to accommodate an information within a given system (and this results in increase of entropy of it).
However it is not clear at all in what form this information exists before it is accommodated by physical system.
I might suggest that it is simply not there...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') might suggest there is a trouble in your understanding of both of these issues. There are people brighter than you or me that have been working on these issues for years, and their problems with it are with black holes apparently destroying information in current models, not creeping rise if entropy as information.
1. That is only appeal to authority and also surrender of intellect.
"Basic concepts of any theory should be possible to explain to average intelligent lay person with basic training in science".
Otherwise a theory is not really good... Who said that?

2. Hawking surrendered few years ago, withheld his no hair theorem related to BH theromdynamics and paid a bet.
So he thinks now that BH is not destroying information after all.
Nevertheless that issue is not settled yet.

3. BH may prove to be only a theoretical objects which don't even exists and are only a manifestation of our lack of understanding of physics.
Prominent alternatives are for example MECO-s or fuzzballs and their existence would exclude possibility of existence of BH.
In any case there is a hope to settle these issues base on observation of candidates.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') expect other, unspecified yet troubles, perhaps related to information theory and its shortcomings.
I'm really quite unsure why you think this. We have no reason to believe that doing brain simulation is obstructed by any theoretical problems in understanding.
My problem with creativity, so characteristic feature of human brain, is that is seems to be more information on output than on the input, hence we observe a progress of knowledge.
Somehow it retrieves an information from surrounding Universe.
BTW. it is not against information theory.
After all information can be discovered.
Nevertheless there are more down to Earth problems, eg how this discovery is actually accomplished, how brain's RAM works etc.
There is also a problem related to theoretical constrain saying that you cannot accumulate retrievable information by random process.
So for example a string of randomly chosen letters is unlikely to the extreme to form a meaningful book.
Hence we need to explain how life accumulated initial load of information necessary for its propagation.
Oh, well... believers have it easy but again I am non believer.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter all we have achieved successful modeling of c elegans locomotion
Leave that poor creepy crawly alone.
Is there any brain in it or just few neural cells?
How many?
50? more? less?
How many neural cells is in human brain?
How many nods we can compute by brute force right now?
How many we can compute using all theoretical computing power available in visible Universe in its lifetime?
As long as I know it is only 3 times more than we can compute now due to rapid increase of complexity of the system.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd current work on biologically consistent neocortical columns isn't running into major theoretical stumbling blocks.
Does it deliver anything useful?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests