Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Richard Anthony Hein Richard.Hein Read it: ​http://bitc​oin.​org/bitcoin.​pdf
  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    http://www.coindesk.com/ibm-reveals-proof-concept-blockchain-powered-internet-things/  Sometimes I feel spied on. 

    What does this have to do with AI?  Lots.  Automation and security of IoT is vital.  There is a security flaw potentially in Bitcoin, as I said:  https://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~verbuech/klepto-ecdsa/klepto-ecdsa.pdf, and now someone made it public.  :-/  We have to fix it. 

    Fortunately, they didn't publish all the details, and it's not something someone could do without a lot of power, but still needs to be fixed.



  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    For example, the ancients had a totally different symbology but remants remain: 



  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote


    Since there can be no proof without a human observer, I'm not wrong. I did assert that sentient beings are responsible for collapsing the wave function, but hamsters don't write scientific papers. Plants are shown to exhibit some sentiment and communication, so all DNA likely shares the power of collapsing the wave function, but we can only speak for ourselves - scientifically.

    I maintain that We are the experiment. The scientist who thinks they are not affecting results, that they are separate from the experiment, is a fool. Our greatest thinkers in this realm accept mystery. No one in this thread is smarter than those physicists who talk of god as they perform experiments and consider results. Do you need names dropped?


    Are you arguing with yourself or with me?  Godel, Escher, Bach:  An Eternal Golden Braid, talks about the nature of animate vs. inanimate matter, and investigates the nature of consciousness, symbolism, mathematics, computation, and everything.  If you aren't searching for everything don't be surprised if others searching for everything cannot quite communicate 100%.  Because you may be searching for something or self-validation and get trapped in an internet bubble where all you can find is what you already believe.  Confirmation bias.  Sometimes you're arguing with someone who agrees in large part and is simply asking more questions about the nature of everything.  To first understand everything we have to accept we know nothing.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @Sven Groot: I think it does belong in a scientific discussion. I did show how your argument is wrong. There is always a human observer to account for collapsing the wave function, regardless if it is days after the recording. I didn't make that up, I read it. Plus, how do new theories begin? With ideas. No successful scientist dismisses ideas the way you're attempting to do with mine. I noticed no answer or acknowledgement of my assertion, just dismissal.

    @Bass: I disparage the use of vocabulary (artificial intelligence) as propaganda and drama - over the top drama - probably to excite interest where there should be none. If you want to limit "intelligence" to the controlled flow of electrons, you are misappropriating the word. If you want to eliminate ideas of wonder and mystery from coffeehouse discussions because they're not "scientific" then you're sophomoric.

    Neither of you guys are public speakers, I wager.

    There does not need to be a human observer if there are animals and life everywhere on the earth, they are observers too.  Even the tiniest microbes in the depths of the earth.  Or networks of plant and fungi.  Or the sun itself, and mass itself, may be the observer, and we've been unable to reconcile QM and Relativity because gravity and whatever that warping of spacetime is itself must be treated as the observer's interface.  Perhaps not the observer, but the interface between observables is the observer.  Thus the medium really is the message as well.

    Meaning results from a shared collective agreement that some symbol means something.  A system of rules and a collection of meaningless fractal chaos.  Out of that chaos these strange attractors exist that draw in spacetime, other attractors and the interaction, on the interface, matter and light are transformed. 

    An AI will have the same limitations as humans, because I think the evidence is growing to indicate that we can get massive speedups in computation, but not exponential for all NP-hard problems.  This means no Singularity exists.  Instead it will be a smooth - relatively speaking - transition to the new computing paradigms and a new knowledge and proof of work based economy (the conclusions I'm drawing are based on many sources). We are quantum computers and all computers are really quantum, but we, as a collective are like one giant quantum computer.  The earth and the universe itself is then like a massive quantum computer.  Or not.  How can we ever know for sure?  All we can do is make stuff that simulates our ideas, we can't reach outside of our universe to peek.  Monads have no windows.  To expect a lower monad to produce a larger monad is silly.  But the composition of monads - that is intelligence.  It's not Artificial.  It's real, I agree, and living as a collective conscious.  The whole can be greater than the sum of it's parts, I think, but yet individually within that collective not one cell has more power than another.  Like the cells in your body - some may become cancerous, but then the immune system activates.  It's a constant battle to fight disease and genetic degradation.  That battle will wage on and on, and the only way to stop it is to continue to multiply the number of entities that convert chaos into order via computation.  Either by reproduction or by replication, exponential growth is required for life to succeed, as there are always attacks that will limit the growth to polynomial time.  So, exponential growth is cyclic and bifurcates (remember predator-prey model), but it's so fractal we need fractal fourier analysis to analyze it fully, and it's emerging now as a new mathematical tool).  We need to keep growth fast in life, and in computing to secure the network, in other words.  The model of Bitcoin is an excellent templar for this.


  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , figuerres wrote


    Hmm a little Frank Herbert there ?

    Yeah, and some other references too.  All worth following, IMHO. :)

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @Richard.Hein: I appreciate your mind. It's not closed. I respect your drive to find a computational model for the universe, it lends into the ideas of C. G. Jung in his later years, where he stated that number is the fundamental archetype. I believe number has quality, time has quality, they're not static increments of the monad; it's the gods of olympus, a digression into the monad.

    I studied philosophy/psychology/religion early on in college and was frustrated by science's attempt to remove quality from number and time. Time, for me, is not an empty vacuum, nor is gravity a constant single force - it's the monad expressing quality through number - 

    Ok, I'll shut up. I'm probably not making enough sense yet. But hopefully you see my perspective.

    Nah, don't shut up; that's fear.  Fear is the mind killer. ;)  I'm always nervous when I follow the white rabbit though.  It's a twisty maze of passages, all alike. ;)


  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    I think the wave function collapsing is analogous to Bitcoin miners solving and confirming a new block, and in the real world we act as miners, observing and computing events in spacetime, trying to "make sense" of the world.  That's analogous to miners solving their puzzles and doing Proof of Work on the solution to whatever computation is being performed in the Many Worlds, and collapses into One Real World like the blockchain model does when one miner solves the puzzle and publishes (communicates or enters into the sphere of influence of another).

    I'd reject any title like Pope and this is not religion.  ;)  Religion is a system of man made rules for approaching the divine (supposedly - although there is a whole range of motivations ... not a debate I really want to get into), but the divine is a monad and we all have a copy of that.  However, at the same time we are almost nothing.  God like but not God like - Leibniz describes how in the Monadology.  Sometimes our version of history becomes the Truth when our sphere of influence interacts with another monad, another being.  Leibniz defined 3 kinds of monads.  Computers would at least count as souls in his classification, because they have memory as well as compute.   Leibniz also argued against Decartes ... http://www.archive.org/stream/philosophicalwor00leibuoft/philosophicalwor00leibuoft_djvu.txt. 

    See http://home.datacomm.ch/kerguelen/monadology/monadology.html

    I'm a skeptic, but I think that if there is a consciousness even slightly more powerful than ours, it would be God to us all, and in this model the universal transaction ledger acts like God.  No one can claim to be God, but everyone has/is a copy.

    In case you haven't realized, I believe in a computational model for the universe, but I am agnostic if I am truthful at all, because I have no way of looking inside some other higher order monad to know.  I can only look within at my version of history and make some assumptions or theories about the world.  I want to believe that there is a God; so I am biased.  But I am a skeptic as well.  It's just the way things are.  There's is and is not at the same time, in a way.  Or maybe not.

  • Half-light, Half-matter created in the lab

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @Richard.Hein:Yes, that's a much more clear explanation. I can see now that the holding/emptying of photons could be states for the material as part of a quantum computing physical processor; I'm not sure what the other two states might be, perhaps the material itself can hold electrons as our binary systems hold state today. 1, 0, light, dark and permutations...

    Hey John, remember this?  http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/236461-Scientists-teleport-two-different-objects#c103f7c04dd0541a1a49d9dec001a890b

    Maybe it was actually half-light, half-matter, and the quantum state was not really teleported in the traditional sense.  Physicists have indeed also shown that quantum state can be separated from a particle (Quantum Chesire Cat).  There's been a huge amount of progress in this area, watch and see how fast it grows.  We may soon be able to simulate quantum mechanics in a classical network.  In fact we can now, but I'm talking about the blueprints for the bridge ... actually multiple bridges are being constructed as we speak, but they are NP-complete bridges on big data that are still going to take Deep Thought to answer, and the common language describing it is still like children babbling.  Optical mines are required.  Then we'll be able to reprogram DNA individually, securely, privately, and safely and cure all genetic diseases forever.  That's my motivation for working on any of this anyways. 





  • Half-light, Half-matter created in the lab

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    They have shown convincingly that by coupling a rather standard dielectric cavity to exciton-polaritons in a monolayer of molybdenum disulphide, they could actually reach this strong coupling regime with a very large binding strength

    I always thought this was possible :)

    LOL, yeah, it's a crappy summary.  Here's the Nature article link:  http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html


  • Half-light, Half-matter created in the lab

    This is worth at least a few Nobel prizes, don't you think?  Wow, I'm glad I lived to see this day.  We will be 3D printing half-light half-matter this time next year.