290 réponses à ce sujet

[abstractwhiz]

Shandepared wrote...

abstractwhiz wrote...

Certainly you should prioritize a human over a geth platform, because the human will be permanently killed, while the geth programs in the platform will be inconvenienced at best, and maybe lose a few memories. But when we're dealing with the permanent destruction of geth programs, then this is as bad as killing living beings. 

They are just ones and zeros as far as I am concerned.  They may mimic life, but they aren't aren't alive, they don't have a real mind. They are ultimately virtual intelligences after all.

What isn't ones and zeros? You can describe anything that way, from programs to people to the laws of physics. 

As for mimicking life, a sufficiently good imitation of life is life, just like a sufficiently good imitation of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. 

Virtual intelligences are a good analogy for individual geth programs, but the geth consciousness isn't a VI, it's an AI. 

It is a matter of philosphy, I suppose. I don't care if characters in the game consider them to be alive. Also you can copy-paste a geth program and save it indefinitely. You could even write it down on paper (a hell of a lot of paper). You can not do the same with an organic.

That's not quite accurate. What you should really say is that is easy to copy and store a geth program. Copying and storing an analog of an organic is equally possible, just orders of magnitude more difficult. (Unless you assume the existence of an immaterial soul or some equally unsubstantiated metaphysical baggage.) One system was designed to facilitate copying, storing and loose mind/body coupling. The design of the other was the result of a very expensive and time-consuming search through a small section of the space of all possible such designs.  

So it sounds like you're rejecting geth sapience because they are more elegantly designed than organics. 

[cruc1al]

^ +1



I have to say I think the geth pass the Turing test easily, so who's to say they're not conscious and aware of their existence.

[Koen Casier]

abstractwhiz wrote...

What isn't ones and zeros? You can describe anything that way, from programs to people to the laws of physics. 

Sorry OT: but I take issue with that; any modern theoretical conception of reality pretty much have one distinct feature in common: that they are for a lack of better word continues and not discrete. In other words reality is not 1 or 0 but the (infinite) many values between 0 and 1 like 0.28956720 but also 0.333333333...

[Vaenier]

Koen Casier wrote...

abstractwhiz wrote...

What isn't ones and zeros? You can describe anything that way, from programs to people to the laws of physics. 

Sorry OT: but I take issue with that; any modern theoretical conception of reality pretty much have one distinct feature in common: that they are for a lack of better word continues and not discrete. In other words reality is not 1 or 0 but the (infinite) many values between 0 and 1 like 0.28956720 but also 0.333333333...

Everything in the universe can be displayed in binary. your example is displayed in binary. Those concepts are created in binary and stored in binary. You are binary.

It kinda sucks realising your entire existance can be summed up with just 2 digits...

[Koen Casier]

Vaenier wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

abstractwhiz wrote...

What isn't ones and zeros? You can describe anything that way, from programs to people to the laws of physics. 

Sorry OT: but I take issue with that; any modern theoretical conception of reality pretty much have one distinct feature in common: that they are for a lack of better word continues and not discrete. In other words reality is not 1 or 0 but the (infinite) many values between 0 and 1 like 0.28956720 but also 0.333333333...

Everything in the universe can be displayed in binary. your example is displayed in binary. Those concepts are created in binary and stored in binary. You are binary.

It kinda sucks realising your entire existance can be summed up with just 2 digits...

OK, if the universe can be exactly be represented as binary data, please express the elementary charges of the Up Quark (being 2/3) in binary. I don't claim that you can get reasonable close (and therefore useful) approximations, but I don't think you can store the data as is in binary.

[Dean_the_Young]

2/3 is 10/11.

[Vaenier]

10/11? Do I win now?

Noooo ninja'd :'(

Modifié par Vaenier, 24 avril 2010 - 01:02 .

[Koen Casier]

Vaenier wrote...

10/11? Do I win now?

Noooo ninja'd :'(

and if you are serous?

[Koen Casier]

Koen Casier wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

10/11? Do I win now?

Noooo ninja'd :'(

and if you are serous?

Oops pressed submit to fast twice

I meant if you want to accurately simulate or store reality you need to accurate hold the actual values of universal constants, not shorthand representations like 2/3 but the actual underlying values.

Edit, Added: Thats why in those theories where if condense reality to a simulation like the (Holographic universe theory) the actual representation of the universe does not relay on discrete information storage (e.g. binary values) but on things like waves, continues functions where you can have things like 2/3 in actual value

Modifié par Koen Casier, 24 avril 2010 - 01:20 .

[TheMufflon]

Koen Casier wrote...

OK, if the universe can be exactly be represented as binary data, please express the elementary charges of the Up Quark (being 2/3) in binary.

You do realize that by making that post your computer translated your expression of the charge of an up quark into binary, don't you?

[Vaenier]

Then record the the extreme base of existence, [strings?] not the sums of those parts. do not assign 1 to a proton, but instead make a proton into 11.

[TheMufflon]

Koen Casier wrote...

I meant if you want to accurately simulate or store reality you need to accurate hold the actual values of universal constants, not shorthand representations like 2/3 but the actual underlying values.

We don't know the actual values of physical constats. We only know their approximate values, how good these approximations are depend on our tools of measuring.

[Koen Casier]

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

OK, if the universe can be exactly be represented as binary data, please express the elementary charges of the Up Quark (being 2/3) in binary.

You do realize that by making that post your computer translated your expression of the charge of an up quark into binary, don't you?

Yes, but the singular symbolic expression is not the problem, I meant that if you wan't to truly simulate reality at some point you will need to have actual calculations done on actual values not their symbolic representation since there are some fidelity loss: The 0.99999... == 1 'proof' fallacy is a simplistic example of this lost of fidelity.

[Koen Casier]

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

I meant if you want to accurately simulate or store reality you need to accurate hold the actual values of universal constants, not shorthand representations like 2/3 but the actual underlying values.

We don't know the actual values of physical constats. We only know their approximate values, how good these approximations are depend on our tools of measuring.

Well in the case of the elemental charge of the Up (+2/3 e) and Down (-1/3 e) quark we are pretty sure about what it is: since we know what the charges are for the proton (+1e) and neutron (0), and we know what each of these contain (proton; Up Up Down and Neutron Up Down Down) it does not take to much algebra to conclude the charge of each quark.

[cruc1al]

Koen Casier wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

I meant if you want to accurately simulate or store reality you need to accurate hold the actual values of universal constants, not shorthand representations like 2/3 but the actual underlying values.

We don't know the actual values of physical constats. We only know their approximate values, how good these approximations are depend on our tools of measuring.

Well in the case of the elemental charge of the Up (+2/3 e) and Down (-1/3 e) quark we are pretty sure about what it is: since we know what the charges are for the proton (+1e) and neutron (0), and we know what each of these contain (proton; Up Up Down and Neutron Up Down Down) it does not take to much algebra to conclude the charge of each quark.

But how much is the charge of an electron? We can only approximate.

[Solomen]

Koen Casier wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

OK, if the universe can be exactly be represented as binary data, please express the elementary charges of the Up Quark (being 2/3) in binary.

You do realize that by making that post your computer translated your expression of the charge of an up quark into binary, don't you?

Yes, but the singular symbolic expression is not the problem, I meant that if you wan't to truly simulate reality at some point you will need to have actual calculations done on actual values not their symbolic representation since there are some fidelity loss: The 0.99999... == 1 'proof' fallacy is a simplistic example of this lost of fidelity.

Seems people are forgetting quantum computers and bio-integrated neural nets... which also completely discounts the emergent discipline of prosthetic hybrotics and symbiotic biomachines.

[Koen Casier]

Vaenier wrote...

Then record the the extreme base of existence, [strings?] not the sums of those parts. do not assign 1 to a proton, but instead make a proton into 11.

Are speaking of string theory, if so then would it not make it even more difficult to store that state in binary data? You would need to accurately describe a vibrating string object in 10d space. (or if you take it further a vibrating membrane in 11d space).

It would not make things easier (I think) it would make it more difficult in binary.

But this is really going off topic. sorry about that.

[Koen Casier]

cruc1al wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

I meant if you want to accurately simulate or store reality you need to accurate hold the actual values of universal constants, not shorthand representations like 2/3 but the actual underlying values.

We don't know the actual values of physical constats. We only know their approximate values, how good these approximations are depend on our tools of measuring.

Well in the case of the elemental charge of the Up (+2/3 e) and Down (-1/3 e) quark we are pretty sure about what it is: since we know what the charges are for the proton (+1e) and neutron (0), and we know what each of these contain (proton; Up Up Down and Neutron Up Down Down) it does not take to much algebra to conclude the charge of each quark.

But how much is the charge of an electron? We can only approximate.

That should be -1e

[Koen Casier]

Solomen wrote...
Seems people are forgetting quantum computers and bio-integrated neural nets... which also completely discounts the emergent discipline of prosthetic hybrotics and symbiotic biomachines.

Finally someone who has a good point but so long as we don't know the elementary charge of the Mac Guffin Condensate all bets are off.

I go to sleep now, goodbye thread that is totally awesome off-topic (it's 4 am local) And remember if something does not make sense: the  did it.

Modifié par Koen Casier, 24 avril 2010 - 02:01 .

[abstractwhiz]

Koen Casier wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

OK, if the universe can be exactly be represented as binary data, please express the elementary charges of the Up Quark (being 2/3) in binary.

You do realize that by making that post your computer translated your expression of the charge of an up quark into binary, don't you?

Yes, but the singular symbolic expression is not the problem, I meant that if you wan't to truly simulate reality at some point you will need to have actual calculations done on actual values not their symbolic representation since there are some fidelity loss: The 0.99999... == 1 'proof' fallacy is a simplistic example of this lost of fidelity.

I'm sorry, but most of the stuff you said is wrong. The mistakes are understandable ones though. :happy:

Our most advanced theoretical models of reality are discrete. That's the whole point of quantum theory - energy isn't continuous, but comes in discrete packets, which we happen to call quanta. Still, I won't lay claim to perfect understanding here, not being a physicist. 

Discrete mathematics and computer science, however, is a completely different story...*Puts on Computer Science-II TA hat*

2/3 is a fraction, and you encode it as two numbers and implement the usual arithmetic operations on fractions instead. Rational numbers can be exactly manipulated by computers in any base.

The fallacy you mentioned is not a fallacy - 0.99999....(infinitely) is exactly 1. All real numbers have a finite and an infinite representation - that is just the infinite representation of 1. Infinite series can sum up to finite quantities, and 0.99999... is just 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... = (9/10) / (1-1/10) = 1.

Modifié par abstractwhiz, 24 avril 2010 - 02:06 .

[Kikaimegami]

Damn, I love the geth, but you people are taking this way too seriously. 

[abstractwhiz]

Kikaimegami wrote...

Damn, I love the geth, but you people are taking this way too seriously. 

Shush, some of us just want a flimsy excuse to have a fun argument. 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

abstractwhiz wrote...

Kikaimegami wrote...

Damn, I love the geth, but you people are taking this way too seriously. 

Shush, some of us just want a flimsy excuse to have a fun argument. 

agreed and it's much food for thought. I have some thoughts to throw in, but just watching at the moment, want to see how this turns out.

[TheMufflon]

Modifié par TheMufflon, 24 avril 2010 - 02:36 .

[TheMufflon]

Koen Casier wrote...

But how much is the charge of an electron? We can only approximate.

That should be -1e

The charge of an electron is - 1 e because  1 e is defined as the charge of a proton. It's measured value is approximatly 1.602176487(40)×10−19 C.