Know everything-computer

This is a discussion on Know everything-computer within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; Zewu. Not sure I get your meaning. I haven't read much eastern philosophy, although The Art of War should be ...

  1. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    161
    Zewu. Not sure I get your meaning. I haven't read much eastern philosophy, although The Art of War should be required reading. My opinion of philosphy is that most of it is an entertaining waste of time. Some of the ancient greek stuff is useful. (The only thing I know is that I know nothing, and it is that that makes me wise--Plato if I recall, maybe Socrates). I always liked their ideas about "the good" , "truth" , "beauty" and the "middle road". Political philosophy the way to go is with Locke. (As did Franklin, Jefferson, et al.)

    As for the comment about the beer,
    1. I was attempting humor.
    2. Drinking in moderation has some good health effects (consult your physician).
    3. When struggling with a difficult intellectual problem, ONE beer can actually help. It knocks out inhibitions, and lets your subconcious go past roadblocks that your concious mind puts up. Also works on multiple choice tests when you haven't studied as much as you should. You don't second guess yourself. Second guessing a multiple choice is a bad idea, unless you know for certain the first choice was wrong. A glass of beer was how the bubble chamber was invented by the way, without which we wouldn't have much to discuss in this thread. (A bubble chamber makes the tracks of elementary particles visible in collider experiments, although other methods have been developed of late.)

    Q: Is this the thread that wouldn't die?

    I'm out of here. Later all.

  2. #77
    Peace
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,510
    >>As for the comment about the beer,

    Am I missing something? I dont see any comments about beer... I'm pretty sure we all understood you. No?

    >>i'm sticking with impossible due to my quantum theory explanation.

    I'm working on a response here. I wonder if you could supply me with one single piece of quantum data that would be relevant to the calculation? Keep in mind that every physical particle in the universe is part of this calculation.

    >>Q: Is this the thread that wouldn't die?

    Havent you seen some of the other theory debates we've had here at cprog? Albeit not for a while, but there _have_ been some whoppers. 20 or so pages wasn't all that amazing for a while.
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  3. #78
    PC Fixer-Upper Waldo2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,001
    I wonder if you could supply me with one single piece of quantum data that would be relevant to the calculation?
    ok, you must not get what i mean. It was suggested earlier that if a computer were to know everything, to have variables for all data in the universe, it could calculate the future. To do this you must know everything (duh, that's what i just said) and to know that you have to include quantum data. Also, quantum data includes the spin of quarks, etc. That may not seem important, but that determines the nature of the subatomic particles it makes up, and the atoms behavior as well. You would have to know that behavior to know everything. Everything has quantum data at some level, so in response to your question, I could point out infinite pieces of data that would be relevant, because like i said everything contains quantum data at some level.

    It's like i'm talking to the walls here...if you don't know all the quantum data in the universe, then you don't know everything, and you therefore could not calculate the future. So what is it now that you're not getting??
    PHP and XML
    Let's talk about SAX

  4. #79
    Peace
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,510
    First off, I apologise if I'm seeming dense. Something about what your saying isnt clicking with me and I'm trying to figure out how to put into words what I'm thinking.

    >>Also, quantum data includes the spin of quarks, etc

    What I dont understand here is _why_ you think this data would turn to applesauce if knowedge was gained regarding it. Remember also that I'm not talking about physically reading all this data, and in no way manipulate it to gain the information. I'm talking about theoretically _having_ this information without ever implicitly "reading" it. Also we dont technically need all 'ways of looking at each piece of data'.

    i.e. The calculating unit has no need to know what any given person is "thinking". We already have the position of all the particles that person is composed of. That means that we can project everything this person will do based on what neurons will be firing at what point, for which stimuli, and the results it firing. Theres no need to have any data but the physical, as all other data is merely a description of the same. (Am I making sense? I may not have explained that very well...)


    Yes, I realise that this line of reasoning is pointless as its all physically impossible, but its an interesting concept so I continue to blather on about it as long as someone is still around to talk back.
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  5. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    161
    Sorry if I got off topic. I made a friendly quip toward Ride or Die about having a cold one to combat "brain melt" and Zewu answered with something I don't quite get.

    I think what your probably missing is that one of the more esoteric aspects of quantum theory is that performing a mathematical operation on quantum data "eats" the data. I'm not really up on this myself but I believe it has something to do with data storage requiring a quantum of energy per bit, or something along those lines. It's been awhile since I've read anything on it.

    Also, there are other strange and interesting things, quantum entanglement for example, that will mess with your calculation.

    To my way of thinking, it's all part of the same uncertainty phenomena. I've got my own little maxim for it. The universe conspires to be self consistant. If you study science a while, you begin to see that if you find one reason something won't work, there are probably several reasons it won't work.

    And if look at all the reasons it won't work, you often see that they are all the same reason, expressed in different ways.

    And often that's when you learn something new.

  6. #81
    Peace
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,510
    >>I made a friendly quip toward Ride or Die about having a cold one to combat "brain melt" and Zewu answered with something I don't quite get.

    Ya, I caught all that. I myself always keep a few cold ones around in case of a mental emergency (i.e. After work ).

    I think what your probably missing is that one of the more esoteric aspects of quantum theory is that performing a mathematical operation on quantum data "eats" the data. I'm not really up on this myself but I believe it has something to do with data storage requiring a quantum of energy per bit, or something along those lines. It's been awhile since I've read anything on it.
    I'm going to have to leave this one alone. I confess to only knowing a small portion of Quantum theory. I'm not exactly a heavyweight on the subject. And thats why I'm going to have to bow out here. I dont feel I'm sufficiently educated on this particular aspect to continue this line of discussion in a reasonable manner. Its been fun.

    >>And often that's when you learn something new.

    Thats one interesting way of putting it. I havent really thought about it in that light before. I always appreciate seeing something from another angle.

    Peace
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  7. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    31
    Everything is theoretically possible.

  8. #83
    Refugee face_master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,052
    Facemaster. Unfortunately no. Not without getting into "Star Trek" science. In other words, a fundamental revolution in physics. The Heisenberg principle is founded on such a fundamental understanding that the likelyhood of a "loophole" is virtually nil.
    There's been many 'fundamental revolutions' in many areas. In the past the scientists have always "known" that something was right. For eg, scientists have always "known" that the Earth is flat and those who go against them get ridculed for having such a whacky idea.

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    137
    Scientists previously didn't know the world was flat, no-one could provide any credible evidence (suprisingly enough), they only thought it was flat. Scientists on the other know ( for sure ) that the world is round ( there is a horizon and you can see from satellites), that gravity is an attractive force ( things fall down on earth ).
    Its a careful distinction you must make. Remember the scientists who said that the world was flat were more like philosophers ( no evidence ), science nowadays is very different to then as you have to have evidence and peer approval,( to make sure you not insane just making results up ) before you can officially say to the world somethings true.

  10. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    161
    Scientists knew very well that the world was round. (Aristarcus 310-230 BC) Historically, laymen have always so outnumbered scientists that even the most basic principles don't get into the public mind. It still a huge problem today.

    I agree that a scientific revolution is always possible, but when answering a question you have to use current understanding. (Or at least put forward your own revolutionary new theory.) Otherwise, you simply wander off into pointless metaphysical argument. (How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?)

    To overturn uncertainty would be very difficult. Too many experimental results would have to be explained away. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying that some things in this world are very, very unlikely.

  11. #86
    Refugee face_master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,052
    Its just a lack of knowledge to not be able to find the exact velosity of an object. Before it was a lack of knolege to not be able to use lightning as a source of energy, but now we have the knoledge and its possible. I'm sure before people would never have dreamed of using lightning as a source of power.

  12. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    161
    Well, first, lightening isn't an energy source. Tesla had some ideas on doing that, but it never really panned out. Tesla tended to alternate between genius and stupendous blunder. Interesting character. I imagine you were actually refering to electricity, which isn't really an energy source either. Fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear are the energy sources in use today, along with some other insignificant sources.(solar, biomass, etc.)

    I do get what your saying. And it is not entirely wrong. But I don't think you realize how unlikely it is that a way around uncertainty will be found. Math and physics form an interlocking whole, and the peices involved fit really well. To put it another way, any theory that replaces current theory will have very little wiggle room.

    As I have said before, I personally think that fundamental particles probably do have an "absolute" existance and obey absolute laws, but we probably can never measure the particles. We may someday deduce the laws.

    It's not so much a lack of knowlege of how to measure absolute position and velocity as a list of reasons why, in a self consistant universe, you should not be able to.

  13. #88
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Proven so, in fact...

    Originally posted by Imperito
    I believe it is Heisenberg's principle that states that at some level you cannot know everything about anything.
    That's why Heisenberg became Heintz.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-26-2006, 01:16 PM
  2. Major Computer Problem
    By Olidivera in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2005, 12:15 PM
  3. Tabbed Windows with MDI?
    By willc0de4food in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 11:58 PM
  4. Computer will not boot.
    By RealityFusion in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 05:05 PM
  5. Which distro should I run on my old computer?
    By joshdick in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-09-2003, 02:37 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21