Monkeymind

Karma: −994

Monkeymind May 11, 2012, 3:10 PM
5 points
in reply to: jonperry’s comment on: Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)
If intelligence is the ability to understand concepts, and a super-intelligent AI has a super ability to understand concepts, what would prevent it (as a tool) from answering questions in a way so as to influence the user and affect outcomes as though it were an agent?

Monkeymind May 9, 2012, 12:02 AM
1 point
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
If this is where we are at, then please advise me of it so I can take appropriate steps to avoid getting banned. I don’t think I got an explicit statement of banning mode having been triggered, but I want to be sure since there is talk of the ban hammer going down.

I am not trying to be contrary, I just am, so it comes out that way. I truly think that what I have to offer has merit. Of course, if the community does not think so then it is within their power to down vote me into non-existence. That is fair, as I have no right to force my ideas on another person. It just seemed that this would be a place to share ideas. Perhaps not.

Monkeymind May 8, 2012, 10:23 PM
1 point
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Are you asking me not to post anywhere in the community or just this thread?

Monkeymind May 8, 2012, 8:53 PM
−4 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Just tell me what you want, and I’ll comply.

If you prefer not having disagreement, I’ll just have to read and not participate. I can’t simply agree because others think differently. Surely that is not what this is about.

Monkeymind May 8, 2012, 4:04 PM
3 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
BTW, I will go by whatever the house rules are. I am not here to be argumentative or disagreeable. I am here to learn. I do not argue for the sake of argument. I argue to become Less Wrong!

Originally I thot this was a physics forum. I came to this thread and got into the discussion w/o reading through the website. My bad! I have tapped out of the thread and will leave it alone. If you must censor me can you please delete all my posts, to be fair. It is hard enough to get people not to take things out of context as it is.

Monkeymind May 7, 2012, 12:54 PM
−7 points
in reply to: komponisto’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 11:21 PM
−4 points
in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
OK, I answered every single post addressed to me. I have done this since the beginning nearly one month ago. I have been honest, open and direct. I have tried to understand the community and I have done my best to respond with as much detail as needed to answer the issues raised.

No one has responded in kind. Therefore, Monday I will be back. If anyone needs clarification on anything that I have said, I will respond. Be prepared to answer my questions and address the issues I have raised by relating it directly to the OP (configurations & amplitudes). Otherwise I am done with this thread.

NOTE: the primary issue is defining the key terms related to the OP and dealing with the propagation of light as a particle/wave.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 10:44 PM
−1 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Well, I hope it has been a benefit to some. I’m just testing ideas out and wanting to learn and I have learned some things… so great!

Judging from the lack of counterarguments, accusations, dodging, strawmen, shifting of goal posts, and so forth, the ideas I am sharing strike at the heart of folks belief system.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 10:30 PM
−2 points
in reply to: CuSithBell’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Hi Cu, and thanx! This is what I have been saying all along.

Maybe, I misunderstand what you mean by intuitive, so perhaps you should give your definition. If we wish to make an appeal to popularity, we can use this Google definition (which I have posted b4):

Intuition: Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.

Based on that definition, you can see clearly see that I have not been saying that at all. I have repeatedly said that in a hypothesis one must rationally define their key terms. It seems like you and others here are guilty of basing your “beliefs” on what you feel to be “true” based upon what you have been told, and not by actually applying the scientific method.

It is a shame that I have to repeat myself so often because folks refuse to actually read what I am saying.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 10:16 PM
0 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 10:06 PM
−5 points
in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Yes, and a grain of rice has more genetic material than a human (almost double). So what?

With the simple understanding of emergent complexity, and without any automata or math at all, I can tell you (predict) what any plant or animal will look like on a mountain above 14k feet, or in a tundra. It is because there are only a few configurations for plants or animals in those conditions. We know this because we have observed it over and over again. So I can predict various life forms quite easily.

Although an electron microscope and a great deal of programming was needed at various stages, Craig Venter’s Synthetic Genomics has synthesized an e-coli bacteria. Using four chemicals they created a synthetic bacterial chromosome and used yeast to assemble the gene sequences. They were copying nature, not actually creating anything from scratch. Lots and lots of trial and error was involved. Watch his press conference and let him tell you himself. Professor Cronin of Glascow University has created self replicating, evolving inorganic (metal-based) iCHELLS almost entirely by trial and error mixing.

I’m very excited about their accomplishments and have corresponded with both of them to let them know. I’m not knocking science or those respectable persons involved in the scientific process, I merely want to help make it better.

I am not for getting rid of theory and replacing it with trial and error. Try to actually read what I have written in toto instead of taking a few phrases out of context.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 9:34 PM
−6 points
in reply to: SusanBrennan’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 8:59 PM
−5 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 5:50 PM
−8 points
in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
“To compare, LW contains a few discussions on many-worlds hypothesis versus collapse hypothesis, but those two are mathematically equivalent. In other case, an experiment could be done that decides between them, and someone would probably have done it decades ago.”

Math can, and in the case of QM, must use infinities and 0-dimensional particles which can not exist in reality.

One can describe Hilbert’s Hotel with infinite rooms, but construction of one is impossible. One can mathematically divide in half infinitely, but can not walk halfway to a wall forever. Math can do many things that reality can not.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 5:32 PM
−10 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 4:51 PM
−9 points
in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Thanx, Bugmaster for splainin your thumbs. It is appreciated. The cascading thread format is not my choice, I much prefer SMF over the blog post style, but that’s what we have to work with. You post and I respond, hence cascading posts.

My writing has been consistent throughout and very organized, which you would know had you taken the time to read them. It took all the posts up until today to get folks to discuss my primary concern (from post one) defining key terms, because it is other members trying to divert the subject matter which is the experiment is flawed because the key terms are not defined or are inconsistent.

The aggressive tone is partially my style but partially stems from others accusing me of being a troll, thumbing me without explanation and refusing to stay on topic. No one has offered a single challenge to my content.

I do not know what you are referring to when you say that I am telling you to do this or not do that, but would like to point out that I was told by one member that I just don’t get it, and that I needed to read such and such if I was going to get any further discussion. I have complied with these demands and have read through dozens of EY’s posts. In fact, you’ll notice that I used quite a bit of his own words to illustrate some of the things that am trying to get across.

In stead of dealing with the issues that I have brought up, I get posts like the ones you are making dealing with style not content. It is your choice to read or not read what I am saying. I am not tied emotionally into the outcome at all, I came to learn about the half-silver mirror experiment and how it is related to SR, GR and QM. I originally thot this was a physics forum because of the topic. Now here you are telling me “You’re not the boss of me” and at the same time telling me how to compose my posts, so that you will read them. How about some counterarguments instead?

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 4:18 PM
−4 points
in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
The theme in my posts all along has been about defining key terms and proper scientific method. We can’t have one without the other. Here is another perfect example of what I have been talking about, when I say proper scientific method.

In the Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements, when the scientists can’t understand how their observations don’t align with their theories, instead of taking a closer look at the assumptions of the theories, they naturally want to invent another particle! (In general, I am pointing to the problem with the Scientific Method. In particular, I am relating this to the back and forth of wave to particle to wave to particle and finally landing on particle/wave duality).

Because of seasonal variations, researchers think that solar flares may be interfering with the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes on earth (which are supposed to be constant).

“It doesn’t make sense according to conventional ideas,” Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be hanged.”

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Remind you of anything? 0D photons and waves that travel don’t make sense based upon the math and observations, so therefore let’s invent the particle/wave paradox. Now, instead of questioning the assumptions of QM, researchers are assuming a new particle in order to make sense of something which does not make sense. QM says that nothing can affect the rate of decay of isotopes.

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 4:05 PM
−8 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Thanx for your question!

No, not if we are talking like a couple of buds on the beach observing a surfer over a couple of beers (and he can shoot the curl all he wants). However when we are talking scientific hypothesis or theory, we have to be using unambiguous, non-contradictory, precisely defined terms that can be used consistently throughout a discussion. If Amplitudes and Configurations wants to use key terms, they need to be defined in this way. I provided definitions from wiki and Wolfram. If one reads through the scientific literature (and I previously listed all the major scientists in chronological order) ones sees that the term wave is used inconsistently. This is why each theorist must define his own key terms (the ones his hypothesis or theory depend upon).

Wave/particle paradox is irrational because it is contradictory and illogical. That alone should raise flags and eyebrows!

Oh and BTW the ocean wave you are referring to are water molecules moving up and down!

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 2:06 PM
−6 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
x

Monkeymind May 4, 2012, 1:35 PM
−13 points
in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Configurations and Amplitude
Geesh! You are all thumbs! (bugman)

So what is this WAVE?

“In physics, a wave is a disturbance or oscillation that travels through spacetime, accompanied by a transfer of energy. Wave motion transfers energy from one point to another, often with no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium—that is, with little or no associated mass transport. They consist, instead, of oscillations or vibrations around almost fixed locations. Waves are described by a wave equation which sets out how the disturbance proceeds over time. The mathematical form of this equation varies depending on the type of wave.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

According to Wolfram: “noun- (physics) a movement up and down or back and forth” http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wave

A disturbance that travels? A movement up and down? Neither of these is a noun. Motion is not an object it is a phenomena, a disturbance through a medium. (This is one reason why space is now supposedly not just a vacumn but some”thing” a medium which can be warped, or rippled).

C = f (frequency) x lambda (wavelength)

The physicist has defined frequency in regards to time and wavelength in regards to length. The math keeps frequency constant and light moving at different speeds through different mediums like glass, air, space, etc (refraction). So light accelerates from 200,000 to 300,00 kilometers per second when it passes from water to air. What causes this? No one has an answer! Newton’s third Law requires a force and Einstein (relativity) requires a curvature of space to deflect light. The solution offered is waves. Different mediums cause different resistance to the waves. So do these waves convert to particles when they reach a different medium?

Standing wave: Particles move up and down while wave moves through? Right! Imagine a rope tied to a tree on one end and you on the other. Move the rope up and down and watch the rope move in place as a motion “travels” along the length. Wait! the photon is supposed to be a traveling wave where the billiard balls move up and down as well as forward. What makes the billiard balls move up and down? Especially if they have no mass.

Wave motion transfers energy? Another important word! Energy is the ability to do work, that is, 1 J = 1 W s = 1 kg m^2/s^2. A motion transfers the ability to do work! A motion moves a motion. Right! Another misuse of the English language. Another example of not knowing the difference between objects and concepts, nouns and verbs!