Shhhhhhhhhhhh...Settle down, settle in
settle for
silence?
Is there such a thing?
Or is it more
peaks and troughs and
peaks and troughs and
pigs at troughs
of volume?
Rooting, rooted, polluted
emptiness.
A fixation on foundation
forlorn for finding
a root, a foothold,
a fixed point
which to grasp
on which to cling
on which to cleave
the true from the false
the sense from the non
the night from the dawn
and so it goes
carried on and on.
Sally forth or
to and fro
rocked on waves
that come and go.
Is there ever
silence?
Is there ever
emptiness?
Is there ever absence
of one that knows
a stillness profound
a figure with no ground
a centre with no bound
a sight unwound
from ties and chains
and lines and lies
defined, defiled, denied
demarcated
desecrated
consecrated
initiated
beginning to end
yet always becoming
a beating
thump thump
a yearning
a returning to
a stemming from
a rhythm
a cycle
a turning?
Who is this I
that eye sees
tossed on seas
of selves and other?
A canopy of you and me
a relentless wave
of seeking, finding
seeking, finding
seeking, finding
peaks and troughs
again
thump thump
peaks and troughs
again
thump thump
peaks and troughs
again
thump thump.
A heartfelt journey or
ruthless tourney?
A competitive scheme or
compassionate dream
seeking
always seeking
never still
never complete
never done.
There is nothing
to be won
after all.
All that is
and all that is not
collides, colludes, coalesces, congeals
the real, the now, the sights, the sounds
the beating
thump thump.
Bruises of being
life leaves its mark.
And if ever there was
silence
and if ever all was still
then there would not
be
something this beautiful:
you
me.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
On the Holographic Principle and the Fractal Model of the Universe
This is a response prompted by +rare avis asking if I had seen this article and was asked in this post. I am posting my response to Drifting Labyrinths for the sake of posterity.
No, I haven't seen this particular article yet, but it seems to misrepresent the "holographic principle," which is common in popular articles on the matter. The Holographic Principle does not say that we "live in a hologram." And every time someone says this it makes baby Jesus cry and I throw up--just a little--in my mouth.
The "holographic principle" is defined as: ...a mathematical principle that the total information contained in a volume of space corresponds to an equal amount of information contained on the boundary of that space (source).
Here's a thing: we seem to live in at least a four dimensional universe: the three spatial dimensions that define things with volume + the time dimension = spacetime (of Relativity) = 4 dimensions.
So, there is a sense in which our experiences are occurring in a "fractal dimension" where a "fractal dimension" is defined as: a measure of how "complicated" a self-similar figure is. In a rough sense, it measures "how many points" lie in a given set. A plane is "larger" than a line, while S sits somewhere in between these two sets (source).
Put differently, a "fractal dimension" is not a whole number but some number between two whole numbers. The plane in the above definition has 2 dimensions, and the line is described in a single dimension, and the fractal dimension of the set of points that define the fractal S in that plane is greater than 1 but less than 2.
So, similarly, our experience of time can be seen as occurring on the boundary of a fractal that exists in a four dimensional space. So, the fractal dimension, then, is greater than 3 but less than 4, and that is kind of like our experience of the possibly four dimensions of spacetime: we readily experience the 3 dimensions of volume in their completeness (as whole numbers, say) but not so with the fourth dimension of time, which we only experience in increments--as some fraction of the whole--and, really, only one "point" at a time.
So, what the "holographic principle" implies in such a model, is that the information in the four dimensional volume of spacetime can be encoded on the surface of that volume, and this surface is the 3 dimensions of volume we readily experience + the "partial" experience of the fourth dimension of time because existence, as is my conjecture, happens on the fractal boundary of a n-dimensional volume (in this case we are discussing, n = 4).
As I put forward months ago (but stated somewhat improperly at the time with respect to the current experiment to test for such a property) and now restated here with more precision and clarity:
The fractal model of the universe is a possible explanation of the structure of the universe if and only if the holographic principle is a property of our universe.
That is a prediction of the model, in other words, and one that can be verified scientifically by experiment.
Put differently, by my understanding of the fractal model that I am endorsing as a possible model of the structure of the universe this model necessarily requires that the holographic principle be true of our universe, or so it seems to me.
And this is precisely because the experiences that we have seem to be of a fractal dimension that is greater than 3 but less than 4 (if we posit the universe is a 4d structure). In other words, we exist on or within the lesser space that describes the surface or boundary of a larger volume, and in order to have experiences that are derived from that larger volume the information contained in that volume must be available on its surface, which is what the holographic principle says.
Put differently still, in a "block universe" conception of our universe (to use a current model that "fits" the following description), the whole universe already exists as whole and complete--from beginning to end--and is a four dimensional object, which is to say a volume inscribed in four dimensional spacetime. But we don't experience that object and its volume directly. We experience parts of the total information that the 4d volume contains, and we do so exactly because such information is available in total on the greater than 3 but less than 4 fractal "surface" of this 4d volume. That is our experience of the total information as divided in time and is part of the turbulent boundary of the fractal.
A little differently still, the fractal itself is "timeless" and it is defined exactly because it is all possible manifestation of or in the total 4D universe in contrast to all the other possible manifestations that did not occur, and the boundary between these two sets of points define the reality of our experiences: it is the turbulent boundary of a fractal or can be adequately modeled that way, anyway. All the information of the universe is found in that 4D volume and the fractal boundary that is the surface of that volume mirrors this information as the boundary goes towards infinity--which is to say takes on a sort of volume itself that is greater than 3 and less than 4, but is always approaching 4.
It is interesting, in a synchronicity sort of way, for the following reason:
I believe this model--or one very much like it--will become part of a future scientific understanding of our universe. This is also a prediction, but not a scientific one--it is an intuitive prediction--although this prediction will be shown true or false in time, so it is a "testable" prediction. I am not aware of anyone who has constructed a similar model as this one, but I am sure it is coming. It only makes sense.
Now, earlier tonight I was on the telephone with an old friend, +Lisa Mizeri, and we hadn't talked for awhile, so we were catching up on all sorts of things, and I mentioned that since I did not get accepted into the Masters of Philosophy program here at the University of Victoria that I was seriously considering starting a BSc in physics.
Part of our earlier conversation was about how, at least in theory, if we live in some odd folding 4D "hyperwhatever" type shape, then we ought to be able to do things, as was her suggestion, like "hiding rows in Excel." We were talking specifically about making travel easier, and in particular travel across Canada. She was saying we should just be able to "click" and hide Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and then it would be easier to get from BC, where I live, to Quebec where she and her family currently live. And then we'd simply "click" again, and those provinces would all be revealed once again.
Later, in the conversation, when I mentioned, among other things, that I might go do this BSc in physics, then I joked that perhaps I would figure out how to fold space in such a way that I could open my apartment door, step through it, and step into her and her family's apartment in Montreal and close the door behind me. I have not made it out their way for a real live visit and Montreal would be a pretty cool place to visit in addition to seeing my old friend.
Anyway, I think that an understanding of the universe in terms of a fractal model is going to be at least a step in that direction. And we were joking earlier about my having written a voluminous tome that would somehow survive into the future--as an actual bound book of paper pages--about my various "conjectures" about reality (some of which we discussed peppered throughout the conversation) that would turn out to be true, and folks, some of them anyway, would wear buttons or t-shirts (or whatever the future equivalent of such things would be) that read "Hydomako Was Right."
And of course we laughed about this. And I joked "What the fuck is a 'Hydomako'?" as I am sure most, if they were bothered to, would be prone to ask, heh.
Now, I think it is much more likely that some ingenious person already in the field of physics with a PhD will publish something that is very much like this model, and is more rigorous in terms of its formalization, that is, it will have equations that show such and such and the math will be present to justify the ideas. So people in the future will, if they do at all, wear buttons and t-shirts that say "[Ingenious Physicist with PhD's Name Here] Was Right."
So, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want my name attached to a revolutionary scientific idea. That would be awesome. I think this or a similar fractal model is that revolutionary scientific idea or at least part of it, but I am not sure if I will end up being the one to publish that more rigorous and mathematically sound paper that sparks or is part of such a revolution. I think by the time I earn a PhD in physics (at least five to seven years and maybe more, if my plan to earn a PhD in Philosophy is any indicator of success (going on seventeen years now and still sitting pretty with a BA), yup)--if indeed I ever accomplish such an endeavor--well, someone is likely going to write that paper before I do.
On the other hand, it is more about the idea--this idea, I feel, needs to get out there--and if I have this idea, others do too because that is how ideas and the "collective consciousness" works. So, if you have this idea too, dear reader, and are in a position to make it more rigorous and have also been prompted by some of my "rough work," then, hey, give me a footnote or something, ok?
See also this thread for further work on the fractal model or at least further explication of it in terms of the A & ~A "theory" about the world. With thanks to +sreejith s, of course.
For a whole lot more on A & ~A see my philosophy website.
And if you really want the hardcore stuff, then read this.
No, I haven't seen this particular article yet, but it seems to misrepresent the "holographic principle," which is common in popular articles on the matter. The Holographic Principle does not say that we "live in a hologram." And every time someone says this it makes baby Jesus cry and I throw up--just a little--in my mouth.
The "holographic principle" is defined as: ...a mathematical principle that the total information contained in a volume of space corresponds to an equal amount of information contained on the boundary of that space (source).
Here's a thing: we seem to live in at least a four dimensional universe: the three spatial dimensions that define things with volume + the time dimension = spacetime (of Relativity) = 4 dimensions.
So, there is a sense in which our experiences are occurring in a "fractal dimension" where a "fractal dimension" is defined as: a measure of how "complicated" a self-similar figure is. In a rough sense, it measures "how many points" lie in a given set. A plane is "larger" than a line, while S sits somewhere in between these two sets (source).
Put differently, a "fractal dimension" is not a whole number but some number between two whole numbers. The plane in the above definition has 2 dimensions, and the line is described in a single dimension, and the fractal dimension of the set of points that define the fractal S in that plane is greater than 1 but less than 2.
So, similarly, our experience of time can be seen as occurring on the boundary of a fractal that exists in a four dimensional space. So, the fractal dimension, then, is greater than 3 but less than 4, and that is kind of like our experience of the possibly four dimensions of spacetime: we readily experience the 3 dimensions of volume in their completeness (as whole numbers, say) but not so with the fourth dimension of time, which we only experience in increments--as some fraction of the whole--and, really, only one "point" at a time.
So, what the "holographic principle" implies in such a model, is that the information in the four dimensional volume of spacetime can be encoded on the surface of that volume, and this surface is the 3 dimensions of volume we readily experience + the "partial" experience of the fourth dimension of time because existence, as is my conjecture, happens on the fractal boundary of a n-dimensional volume (in this case we are discussing, n = 4).
As I put forward months ago (but stated somewhat improperly at the time with respect to the current experiment to test for such a property) and now restated here with more precision and clarity:
The fractal model of the universe is a possible explanation of the structure of the universe if and only if the holographic principle is a property of our universe.
That is a prediction of the model, in other words, and one that can be verified scientifically by experiment.
Put differently, by my understanding of the fractal model that I am endorsing as a possible model of the structure of the universe this model necessarily requires that the holographic principle be true of our universe, or so it seems to me.
And this is precisely because the experiences that we have seem to be of a fractal dimension that is greater than 3 but less than 4 (if we posit the universe is a 4d structure). In other words, we exist on or within the lesser space that describes the surface or boundary of a larger volume, and in order to have experiences that are derived from that larger volume the information contained in that volume must be available on its surface, which is what the holographic principle says.
Put differently still, in a "block universe" conception of our universe (to use a current model that "fits" the following description), the whole universe already exists as whole and complete--from beginning to end--and is a four dimensional object, which is to say a volume inscribed in four dimensional spacetime. But we don't experience that object and its volume directly. We experience parts of the total information that the 4d volume contains, and we do so exactly because such information is available in total on the greater than 3 but less than 4 fractal "surface" of this 4d volume. That is our experience of the total information as divided in time and is part of the turbulent boundary of the fractal.
A little differently still, the fractal itself is "timeless" and it is defined exactly because it is all possible manifestation of or in the total 4D universe in contrast to all the other possible manifestations that did not occur, and the boundary between these two sets of points define the reality of our experiences: it is the turbulent boundary of a fractal or can be adequately modeled that way, anyway. All the information of the universe is found in that 4D volume and the fractal boundary that is the surface of that volume mirrors this information as the boundary goes towards infinity--which is to say takes on a sort of volume itself that is greater than 3 and less than 4, but is always approaching 4.
It is interesting, in a synchronicity sort of way, for the following reason:
I believe this model--or one very much like it--will become part of a future scientific understanding of our universe. This is also a prediction, but not a scientific one--it is an intuitive prediction--although this prediction will be shown true or false in time, so it is a "testable" prediction. I am not aware of anyone who has constructed a similar model as this one, but I am sure it is coming. It only makes sense.
Now, earlier tonight I was on the telephone with an old friend, +Lisa Mizeri, and we hadn't talked for awhile, so we were catching up on all sorts of things, and I mentioned that since I did not get accepted into the Masters of Philosophy program here at the University of Victoria that I was seriously considering starting a BSc in physics.
Part of our earlier conversation was about how, at least in theory, if we live in some odd folding 4D "hyperwhatever" type shape, then we ought to be able to do things, as was her suggestion, like "hiding rows in Excel." We were talking specifically about making travel easier, and in particular travel across Canada. She was saying we should just be able to "click" and hide Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and then it would be easier to get from BC, where I live, to Quebec where she and her family currently live. And then we'd simply "click" again, and those provinces would all be revealed once again.
Later, in the conversation, when I mentioned, among other things, that I might go do this BSc in physics, then I joked that perhaps I would figure out how to fold space in such a way that I could open my apartment door, step through it, and step into her and her family's apartment in Montreal and close the door behind me. I have not made it out their way for a real live visit and Montreal would be a pretty cool place to visit in addition to seeing my old friend.
Anyway, I think that an understanding of the universe in terms of a fractal model is going to be at least a step in that direction. And we were joking earlier about my having written a voluminous tome that would somehow survive into the future--as an actual bound book of paper pages--about my various "conjectures" about reality (some of which we discussed peppered throughout the conversation) that would turn out to be true, and folks, some of them anyway, would wear buttons or t-shirts (or whatever the future equivalent of such things would be) that read "Hydomako Was Right."
And of course we laughed about this. And I joked "What the fuck is a 'Hydomako'?" as I am sure most, if they were bothered to, would be prone to ask, heh.
Now, I think it is much more likely that some ingenious person already in the field of physics with a PhD will publish something that is very much like this model, and is more rigorous in terms of its formalization, that is, it will have equations that show such and such and the math will be present to justify the ideas. So people in the future will, if they do at all, wear buttons and t-shirts that say "[Ingenious Physicist with PhD's Name Here] Was Right."
So, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want my name attached to a revolutionary scientific idea. That would be awesome. I think this or a similar fractal model is that revolutionary scientific idea or at least part of it, but I am not sure if I will end up being the one to publish that more rigorous and mathematically sound paper that sparks or is part of such a revolution. I think by the time I earn a PhD in physics (at least five to seven years and maybe more, if my plan to earn a PhD in Philosophy is any indicator of success (going on seventeen years now and still sitting pretty with a BA), yup)--if indeed I ever accomplish such an endeavor--well, someone is likely going to write that paper before I do.
On the other hand, it is more about the idea--this idea, I feel, needs to get out there--and if I have this idea, others do too because that is how ideas and the "collective consciousness" works. So, if you have this idea too, dear reader, and are in a position to make it more rigorous and have also been prompted by some of my "rough work," then, hey, give me a footnote or something, ok?
See also this thread for further work on the fractal model or at least further explication of it in terms of the A & ~A "theory" about the world. With thanks to +sreejith s, of course.
For a whole lot more on A & ~A see my philosophy website.
And if you really want the hardcore stuff, then read this.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
E = mc^2
In my less than scientifically rigourous and not
necessarily physical formulation of a particular variation on
"Relativity Theory," well, the formula in the title can be interpreted
as:
Entertainment = misanthropy (times) cynicism (squared).
With that in mind, I present unto you:
The Wall
or
The Philosopher King (For a Day)
If I had my way, I'd have all of ya' shot.
Now, I don't care what "race" ya' are, what the colour of yer skin is, or what yer appearance and features are in general: we're all human beings.
And I don't care what religion you practice (or not): we all have ways to make sense of the world, our place in it, and a means to create meaning from an otherwise seemingly meaningless existence.
And I don't care what you do to yerself: smoke pot; take drugs; drink; do yoga; eat only vegetables; drink too much coffee, man; or whatever else. We are each free--if indeed we are in any sense "free"--to make our own choices regarding our own particular lifestyles insofar as those choices effect (mostly) our own being (and here the qualification of "mostly" because simply through relating our lifestyle choices may effect others, but that is a whole 'nother "can of worms"--let's allow a degree of simplification here--for entertainment value--thanks).
And I don't care what yer sexual orientation is or what kinks you have: see above regarding "what you do to yerself." So long as what we are doing is consensual, well, everyone else can mind their own fucking business and stay the fuck out of another's undies (unless, of course, there's mutual consent there, then, go on, dive right in).
And I don't care what yer position is in the social hierarchy: good, decent people can be found within all the socially defined (however so) "castes."
What I do care about is how each and any of us relate to other people, and this can be often expressed specifically via our "profession," or "career choices," or "jobs" in general.
And I do, more or less, agree with Shakespeare:
Let's kill all the lawyers first.
But of course, we can't simply generalize over all the lawyers, 'cause at least some of them are going to be good, decent human beings who use their profession as a means to help and assist others, so:
Let's kill some but not all the lawyers first.
Get 'em up against the wall.
And then there's the politicians. Again, it's going to be some but not all.
'Gainst. The. Wall.
And some but not all religious leaders.
Get 'em up against the wall.
And some but not all (but probably most) bankers.
'Gainst. The. Wall
Actually, let's do the bankers second--right after the lawyers.
And the landlords: some but not all.
Get 'em up against the wall.
CEOs and other board members, well, most of you, I'd reckon:
'Gainst. The. Wall
War mongers, military chiefs of staff, generals, and people who command large groups of other people to kill yet other people:
Get 'em up against the wall.
My, it's getting pretty bloody in here, isn't it? The air is thick with the smell of gunpowder--let's make sure we are all wearing respirators--and I do hope you are all also wearing protective gear for yer ears.
And what are we gonna' do with all these corpses? I suppose incineration will be the most practical solution: fire up the furnaces, comrades!
I am sure I've left out some other general categories of people as defined by their professions. This is merely an initial sort of modest proposal and we can hash out the fine details as we incinerate the bodies, OK?
Now, the important part, obviously, is coming up with a fair and reasonable criteria that can--much more often than not--separate the "some" from the "all."
How do we do this? It is a tricky affair to be sure, and, well, we're likely gonna' have to break a few eggs, now and then, if we want to make an omelet. Sorry families and friends of the wrongly put down: we'll make sure you are well compensated by the redistribution of wealth this endeavour will certainly entail. Simply think of it in the same light as when you mash a mosquito that hasn't even bitten you yet: there'll always be more of them along that will bite you.
So, the criteria.
I say, as yer pretend philosopher king fer the day, we let people draw the line themselves and then wait for their own hypocrisy to make them cross it.
Yes, each of us is free to be as helpful or not helpful with regards to everyone else as we so chose, but when we take direct action and willfully engage in behaviours that harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike against us, yes?
You want freedom of speech? You want freedom of thought? You want freedom to express yourself? Have it. Have it all. Stand on a soapbox in the market place and cry out your hate, your hardship, your pain, your frustration, and whatever else: I don't care.
Act on those same things in ways which harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike.
Paint pictures, make movies, build monuments, write manifestos and tracts, create whatever you want: I don't care.
Take advantage of others via whatever means in order to exploit them, well that's a strike.
Three strikes?
Up against the wall.
It's simple, really: "treat others as you would have them treat yourself, and do not treat others as you would not have them treat yourself."
And, yes, that itself is likely too simple, but, hey, everything looks better on paper--even digital representations of paper--then it does when put into practice; regardless, this is all only entertainment anyway: I have little interest in cleaning up the mess--hypothetical or otherwise.
That said, let's start with the lawyers: get 'em up against the wall.
Entertainment = misanthropy (times) cynicism (squared).
With that in mind, I present unto you:
The Wall
or
The Philosopher King (For a Day)
If I had my way, I'd have all of ya' shot.
Now, I don't care what "race" ya' are, what the colour of yer skin is, or what yer appearance and features are in general: we're all human beings.
And I don't care what religion you practice (or not): we all have ways to make sense of the world, our place in it, and a means to create meaning from an otherwise seemingly meaningless existence.
And I don't care what you do to yerself: smoke pot; take drugs; drink; do yoga; eat only vegetables; drink too much coffee, man; or whatever else. We are each free--if indeed we are in any sense "free"--to make our own choices regarding our own particular lifestyles insofar as those choices effect (mostly) our own being (and here the qualification of "mostly" because simply through relating our lifestyle choices may effect others, but that is a whole 'nother "can of worms"--let's allow a degree of simplification here--for entertainment value--thanks).
And I don't care what yer sexual orientation is or what kinks you have: see above regarding "what you do to yerself." So long as what we are doing is consensual, well, everyone else can mind their own fucking business and stay the fuck out of another's undies (unless, of course, there's mutual consent there, then, go on, dive right in).
And I don't care what yer position is in the social hierarchy: good, decent people can be found within all the socially defined (however so) "castes."
What I do care about is how each and any of us relate to other people, and this can be often expressed specifically via our "profession," or "career choices," or "jobs" in general.
And I do, more or less, agree with Shakespeare:
Let's kill all the lawyers first.
But of course, we can't simply generalize over all the lawyers, 'cause at least some of them are going to be good, decent human beings who use their profession as a means to help and assist others, so:
Let's kill some but not all the lawyers first.
Get 'em up against the wall.
And then there's the politicians. Again, it's going to be some but not all.
'Gainst. The. Wall.
And some but not all religious leaders.
Get 'em up against the wall.
And some but not all (but probably most) bankers.
'Gainst. The. Wall
Actually, let's do the bankers second--right after the lawyers.
And the landlords: some but not all.
Get 'em up against the wall.
CEOs and other board members, well, most of you, I'd reckon:
'Gainst. The. Wall
War mongers, military chiefs of staff, generals, and people who command large groups of other people to kill yet other people:
Get 'em up against the wall.
My, it's getting pretty bloody in here, isn't it? The air is thick with the smell of gunpowder--let's make sure we are all wearing respirators--and I do hope you are all also wearing protective gear for yer ears.
And what are we gonna' do with all these corpses? I suppose incineration will be the most practical solution: fire up the furnaces, comrades!
I am sure I've left out some other general categories of people as defined by their professions. This is merely an initial sort of modest proposal and we can hash out the fine details as we incinerate the bodies, OK?
Now, the important part, obviously, is coming up with a fair and reasonable criteria that can--much more often than not--separate the "some" from the "all."
How do we do this? It is a tricky affair to be sure, and, well, we're likely gonna' have to break a few eggs, now and then, if we want to make an omelet. Sorry families and friends of the wrongly put down: we'll make sure you are well compensated by the redistribution of wealth this endeavour will certainly entail. Simply think of it in the same light as when you mash a mosquito that hasn't even bitten you yet: there'll always be more of them along that will bite you.
So, the criteria.
I say, as yer pretend philosopher king fer the day, we let people draw the line themselves and then wait for their own hypocrisy to make them cross it.
Yes, each of us is free to be as helpful or not helpful with regards to everyone else as we so chose, but when we take direct action and willfully engage in behaviours that harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike against us, yes?
You want freedom of speech? You want freedom of thought? You want freedom to express yourself? Have it. Have it all. Stand on a soapbox in the market place and cry out your hate, your hardship, your pain, your frustration, and whatever else: I don't care.
Act on those same things in ways which harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike.
Paint pictures, make movies, build monuments, write manifestos and tracts, create whatever you want: I don't care.
Take advantage of others via whatever means in order to exploit them, well that's a strike.
Three strikes?
Up against the wall.
It's simple, really: "treat others as you would have them treat yourself, and do not treat others as you would not have them treat yourself."
And, yes, that itself is likely too simple, but, hey, everything looks better on paper--even digital representations of paper--then it does when put into practice; regardless, this is all only entertainment anyway: I have little interest in cleaning up the mess--hypothetical or otherwise.
That said, let's start with the lawyers: get 'em up against the wall.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
On the Mistakes of AI Supporters and Detractors
This is a response to a post on Google+ by +Singularity 2045. The original post can currently be viewed here. This post (if no longer available at the time of reading my response below) was based on a link to this page, apparently.
When it comes to pro or con arguments with respect to "machine intelligence," or "AI," the logic on both sides of the argument is frequently lacking.
In the OP Singularity 2045 references a statement of Mark Tegmark, which is presented as:
One thing is certain, and that is that the reason we humans have more power on this planet than tigers is not because we have sharper claws than tigers, or stronger muscles. It’s because we’re smarter. So if we create machines that are smarter than us there’s absolutely no guarantee that we’re going to stay in control,
and Singularity 2045 subsequently critisizes it in the following:
Analogies regarding tigers are only valid if tigers had created the human race via intelligent AI engineering of human brains, or AI design of precursor human brains. The point is our intelligent engineering of AI makes humans utterly different to any unintelligent species below us unable to create higher intelligence.
It is easy to see how, regardless of Tegmark's use of analogy or whether Tegmark is pro or con AI, this statement is possibly true:
If we create machines that are smarter than us there’s absolutely no guarantee that we’re going to stay in control.
The thing here is we need to understand what we mean by "artificial intelligence."
If we merely mean really smart machines that are still machines, that is, they are still entirely constrained by their programing and what we command them to do via that programing, then we can not really "lose control over them" in any meaningful sense.
Things could go wrong with the programing, sure, there could be glitches and bugs, sure, but ultimately by definition, and in virtue of, our programming of these machines, we are always going to be "in control" of them even if our control of them goes sideways due to human error (via glitches and bugs in programming). Put differently, when a machine (as we currently understand them) breaks down or malfunctions or whatever else, our temporary "loss of control" is metaphorical. It's not that we suddenly found ourselves facing a machine that chose to go "out of control," rather, the degree of our control over the machine simply reached a low we would rather it had not.
Put differently still, when we "lose control" over a given machine, we do not suddenly think we are living in the world of Maximum Overdrive.
By means of a simple analogy: we can literally "lose control" of our pet dog, for example, but we cannot literally "lose control" of our pet rock.
However, if by "artificial intelligence" we mean the creation of a machine that can also think for itself, which entails, it can choose how to act and respond to its environment, and is unconstrained by its programing--that is, it is free to alter its programming and is not dependent on our commands--then it is entirely possible that we will "lose control" over it. Indeed, by definition we have little to no control over any "free agent," and if we can exercise control over a "free agent," then such an agent is not truly "free."
Now here's an analogy that is actually workable. We have no idea about other human beings. We think we might "know" them, and we think we might be able to predict their behaviours based on our knowledge of them with respect to previous interactions with them under such and such a circumstance or another.
However, people can be unpredictable. They can surprise us. This is because either:
1) They have something known as "free will" and can choose to act or respond differently with respect to how we predict they might respond, or
2) There is no such thing as "free will," but our universe, in its complexity, is a nonlinear deterministic system, which entails that we can not always predict results; put differently, a nonlinear deterministic system is unpredictable, by definition.
(There is, of course, a third option here in that the universe is a deterministic linear system: this is highly unlikely, in my opinion, but if that is the case, then no one is "controlling" anything, and everything in the universe is merely the playing out of predetermined results based on previous causes, which we could, in theory, anyway, predict if we could figure out what those initial conditions, in fact, were, but this is an aside.)
Now, if we are unable to always and accurately predict the behaviour of other human beings--whose general biological and psychological framework are similar and familiar to our own--then how much less so will we be able to predict the behaviour of a machine intelligence that either has "free will" or is itself able to act, as we do, along the lines of a participant in a nonlinear deterministic system?
In other words, we have a difficult enough time trying to control and predict the behaviours of complex systems (human beings) that are reasonably similar and familiar to ourselves, so there is no reason to think that we can have any greater success in controlling or predicting a machine entity that we have never encountered before.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion to the debate as to whether or not a machine intelligence (of the "free" or "nonlinear" variety) is going to be beneficial to humankind or malevolent is that currently such a question is undecidable.
Logically speaking, we have no good reasons to suppose it is either. Taking a side at this point in time (where we have ZERO experience with such a "machine intelligence") is simply speculative navel gazing based on our own particular prejudices and biases. We have no actual empirical evidence on which to base our conclusions.
We can guess and speculate all we want, but until such an entity is actually in the world, there is nothing upon which to ground our guesses and speculations. It is exactly like trying to decide if alien visitors to the planet would be a boon or a misfortune to humankind: until we actually have alien visitors (assuming we have none already and assuming that if we do, their impact on the world has been hidden from us and, therefore, most of us have no way to adequately assess the matter), there is simply no way to predict the outcome.
When it comes to pro or con arguments with respect to "machine intelligence," or "AI," the logic on both sides of the argument is frequently lacking.
In the OP Singularity 2045 references a statement of Mark Tegmark, which is presented as:
One thing is certain, and that is that the reason we humans have more power on this planet than tigers is not because we have sharper claws than tigers, or stronger muscles. It’s because we’re smarter. So if we create machines that are smarter than us there’s absolutely no guarantee that we’re going to stay in control,
and Singularity 2045 subsequently critisizes it in the following:
Analogies regarding tigers are only valid if tigers had created the human race via intelligent AI engineering of human brains, or AI design of precursor human brains. The point is our intelligent engineering of AI makes humans utterly different to any unintelligent species below us unable to create higher intelligence.
It is easy to see how, regardless of Tegmark's use of analogy or whether Tegmark is pro or con AI, this statement is possibly true:
If we create machines that are smarter than us there’s absolutely no guarantee that we’re going to stay in control.
The thing here is we need to understand what we mean by "artificial intelligence."
If we merely mean really smart machines that are still machines, that is, they are still entirely constrained by their programing and what we command them to do via that programing, then we can not really "lose control over them" in any meaningful sense.
Things could go wrong with the programing, sure, there could be glitches and bugs, sure, but ultimately by definition, and in virtue of, our programming of these machines, we are always going to be "in control" of them even if our control of them goes sideways due to human error (via glitches and bugs in programming). Put differently, when a machine (as we currently understand them) breaks down or malfunctions or whatever else, our temporary "loss of control" is metaphorical. It's not that we suddenly found ourselves facing a machine that chose to go "out of control," rather, the degree of our control over the machine simply reached a low we would rather it had not.
Put differently still, when we "lose control" over a given machine, we do not suddenly think we are living in the world of Maximum Overdrive.
By means of a simple analogy: we can literally "lose control" of our pet dog, for example, but we cannot literally "lose control" of our pet rock.
However, if by "artificial intelligence" we mean the creation of a machine that can also think for itself, which entails, it can choose how to act and respond to its environment, and is unconstrained by its programing--that is, it is free to alter its programming and is not dependent on our commands--then it is entirely possible that we will "lose control" over it. Indeed, by definition we have little to no control over any "free agent," and if we can exercise control over a "free agent," then such an agent is not truly "free."
Now here's an analogy that is actually workable. We have no idea about other human beings. We think we might "know" them, and we think we might be able to predict their behaviours based on our knowledge of them with respect to previous interactions with them under such and such a circumstance or another.
However, people can be unpredictable. They can surprise us. This is because either:
1) They have something known as "free will" and can choose to act or respond differently with respect to how we predict they might respond, or
2) There is no such thing as "free will," but our universe, in its complexity, is a nonlinear deterministic system, which entails that we can not always predict results; put differently, a nonlinear deterministic system is unpredictable, by definition.
(There is, of course, a third option here in that the universe is a deterministic linear system: this is highly unlikely, in my opinion, but if that is the case, then no one is "controlling" anything, and everything in the universe is merely the playing out of predetermined results based on previous causes, which we could, in theory, anyway, predict if we could figure out what those initial conditions, in fact, were, but this is an aside.)
Now, if we are unable to always and accurately predict the behaviour of other human beings--whose general biological and psychological framework are similar and familiar to our own--then how much less so will we be able to predict the behaviour of a machine intelligence that either has "free will" or is itself able to act, as we do, along the lines of a participant in a nonlinear deterministic system?
In other words, we have a difficult enough time trying to control and predict the behaviours of complex systems (human beings) that are reasonably similar and familiar to ourselves, so there is no reason to think that we can have any greater success in controlling or predicting a machine entity that we have never encountered before.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion to the debate as to whether or not a machine intelligence (of the "free" or "nonlinear" variety) is going to be beneficial to humankind or malevolent is that currently such a question is undecidable.
Logically speaking, we have no good reasons to suppose it is either. Taking a side at this point in time (where we have ZERO experience with such a "machine intelligence") is simply speculative navel gazing based on our own particular prejudices and biases. We have no actual empirical evidence on which to base our conclusions.
We can guess and speculate all we want, but until such an entity is actually in the world, there is nothing upon which to ground our guesses and speculations. It is exactly like trying to decide if alien visitors to the planet would be a boon or a misfortune to humankind: until we actually have alien visitors (assuming we have none already and assuming that if we do, their impact on the world has been hidden from us and, therefore, most of us have no way to adequately assess the matter), there is simply no way to predict the outcome.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Always Forget
I was out at the local market to do some hunting
and gathering--OK, mostly gathering--when I spied none other than Kurt
Cobain on the cover of this month's Rolling Stone.
Some story about little Frances Bean (who, I suppose, ain't that little
no more) trying to find her long dead father, whatever that is supposed
to mean. I reckon you can just listen to his records, Frances, he
seemed to put a lot of himself into them, or so it seems to me.
"Ah yes," I thought to myself, "it is that month, isn't it?"
I always forget the day and I came home to look it up and the anniversary of your death was on April 5th and that was--can you believe it--twenty-one years ago. Wow. I remember when that Nevermind record was the shit. Spoke to and for a whole generation of slackers and Gen Xers and post-punk lost souls wandering in the wasteland of a confusing, unfriendly, and uncaring modern society of idiot fucktards. What's changed, really?
Grunge the media called it. And it invaded the airwaves and help transform the idiot jock fucks into "alternative" cool folks ("he's the one who likes all our pretty songs, and he likes to sing along, but he knows not what it means"--oh the sarcastic irony of it all, Kurt), and brought the hip subculture--or some faction of a hip subculture, anyway--into the pop culture, and the rest is a tragic sort of history. Spawned a shitload of shitty fuckin' bands that sound like Theory of a Dead Nickel Creed.
And I hate that band. Well, "hate" is a pretty strong word. I guess I'd simply be much happier--or, perhaps better, wouldn't have to be bothered to care at all--if they all died in a tragic bus crash or something. Maybe all the masters and copies of all their songs could simply vanish from the face of the Earth along with them. All those bands that are that band--y'know what I mean.
You know, Kurt, that record isn't even all that good. I mean, I happened to put it on the other month and, having not heard it in years, well, it simply didn't do it for me anymore. Sure, there's still some good songs on it, yeah, but it doesn't have the same rawness of Bleach, say, and it certainly lacks the maturity of In Utero, and it's just not as fun as some of the tracks on Incesticide. And like I've ever bothered to listen to the "unplugged album" because, really, what's the fuckin' point? So, in this humble listener's opinion, well, Nevermind is the worst Nirvana album. But it does have few songs that were still pretty good to hear. Well, maybe it is less that it's not a good record and maybe it's more that it was a record that needed the historical context to make it as great as it was for a time. Still the worst of the bunch, if you ask me though.
Maybe Courtney had ya' killed, as some people still figure, or maybe you really did kill yourself, or maybe you wanted to kill yourself but were too scared to end it by your own hand--a lot of people with suicidal ideations are: it is a pretty difficult step to actually take, after all--and you hired someone else to do it for you and maybe some of these people actually know this to be true.
Who knows? I mean, I sure don't, anyway. And I reckon perhaps like the assassination of, say, JFK or like the actual events of 9/11, well, most of us will simply never learn the truth of the matter and the truth will fade into mythology over time. To quote a different Kurt, also no longer with us, who also died in April, and also tragically--but with much less mystery--"and so it goes."
And so you're gone now, and have been for twenty-one years. Crazy. And almost every year I forget that April is the month that marks the anniversary of your death. And every year it simply doesn't seem to matter, anyway, if I remember you or not. And maybe that's what you'd prefer, really. "Oh well, whatever, never mind."
But this year, thanks to a cursory glance across the magazine rack at the local market, well, here's a little tribute to you, Kurt. All in all is, indeed, all we all are. And if that's the case, then we'll see you again in the Western Lands.
"Ah yes," I thought to myself, "it is that month, isn't it?"
I always forget the day and I came home to look it up and the anniversary of your death was on April 5th and that was--can you believe it--twenty-one years ago. Wow. I remember when that Nevermind record was the shit. Spoke to and for a whole generation of slackers and Gen Xers and post-punk lost souls wandering in the wasteland of a confusing, unfriendly, and uncaring modern society of idiot fucktards. What's changed, really?
Grunge the media called it. And it invaded the airwaves and help transform the idiot jock fucks into "alternative" cool folks ("he's the one who likes all our pretty songs, and he likes to sing along, but he knows not what it means"--oh the sarcastic irony of it all, Kurt), and brought the hip subculture--or some faction of a hip subculture, anyway--into the pop culture, and the rest is a tragic sort of history. Spawned a shitload of shitty fuckin' bands that sound like Theory of a Dead Nickel Creed.
And I hate that band. Well, "hate" is a pretty strong word. I guess I'd simply be much happier--or, perhaps better, wouldn't have to be bothered to care at all--if they all died in a tragic bus crash or something. Maybe all the masters and copies of all their songs could simply vanish from the face of the Earth along with them. All those bands that are that band--y'know what I mean.
You know, Kurt, that record isn't even all that good. I mean, I happened to put it on the other month and, having not heard it in years, well, it simply didn't do it for me anymore. Sure, there's still some good songs on it, yeah, but it doesn't have the same rawness of Bleach, say, and it certainly lacks the maturity of In Utero, and it's just not as fun as some of the tracks on Incesticide. And like I've ever bothered to listen to the "unplugged album" because, really, what's the fuckin' point? So, in this humble listener's opinion, well, Nevermind is the worst Nirvana album. But it does have few songs that were still pretty good to hear. Well, maybe it is less that it's not a good record and maybe it's more that it was a record that needed the historical context to make it as great as it was for a time. Still the worst of the bunch, if you ask me though.
Maybe Courtney had ya' killed, as some people still figure, or maybe you really did kill yourself, or maybe you wanted to kill yourself but were too scared to end it by your own hand--a lot of people with suicidal ideations are: it is a pretty difficult step to actually take, after all--and you hired someone else to do it for you and maybe some of these people actually know this to be true.
Who knows? I mean, I sure don't, anyway. And I reckon perhaps like the assassination of, say, JFK or like the actual events of 9/11, well, most of us will simply never learn the truth of the matter and the truth will fade into mythology over time. To quote a different Kurt, also no longer with us, who also died in April, and also tragically--but with much less mystery--"and so it goes."
And so you're gone now, and have been for twenty-one years. Crazy. And almost every year I forget that April is the month that marks the anniversary of your death. And every year it simply doesn't seem to matter, anyway, if I remember you or not. And maybe that's what you'd prefer, really. "Oh well, whatever, never mind."
But this year, thanks to a cursory glance across the magazine rack at the local market, well, here's a little tribute to you, Kurt. All in all is, indeed, all we all are. And if that's the case, then we'll see you again in the Western Lands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)