• Register
  • Login
  •          

    The Limits of Logic

    Image
      Can't find the appropriate forum for your topic? Post it here!

    Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 12 Apr 2009 04:46

    Hmm ... except that even the best (quantum) computer crunching even super-accurate astronomical data couldn't predict uncharted objects or the paths of other ships suddenly folding into the destination system. ;)
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby inhuien » 12 Apr 2009 05:44

    Open your mind.
    Image
    User avatar
    inhuien
     
    Posts: 3629
    Joined: 09 Feb 2008 05:03
    Location: right here as in not (all) there

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 12 Apr 2009 06:00

    And your assets will follow?
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SadisticCynic » 12 Apr 2009 10:33

    As I understood prescience, the oracle can somehow observe the possibilities in the wave function of particles. But there's no way you could observe all of these at one time because the information would presumably reach you at the speed of light at the fastest (perhaps there is a clue here as to the oracle seeing the past as well). Thus the oracle must somehow deduce the future from the possibilities that are open in the immediate surroundings. Perhaps the greater the prescient the greater the immediate surroundings are. Anyway this is supported by the future being clouded into a nexus whenever the things (events) the future relies on are all together and happening close together. Perhaps with some sort of massive computation this could be judged. In Michael Crichton's Timeline quantum computers operate in all parallel universes thus operating at infinite (or whatever) speed.

    Or I'm just crazy... :crazy:
    Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
    User avatar
    SadisticCynic
     
    Posts: 2004
    Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
    Location: In Time or in Space?

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Freakzilla » 12 Apr 2009 12:09

    Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.
    Image
    Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
    ~Pink Snowman
    User avatar
    Freakzilla
    Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
     
    Posts: 18083
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 12 Apr 2009 16:02

    And I really don't think you want to bring the speed of light into it....
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SadisticCynic » 12 Apr 2009 18:16

    Ok I'll wait until I've studied a bit more physics. :(

    Great food for thought though (and discussion :wink: ).
    Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
    User avatar
    SadisticCynic
     
    Posts: 2004
    Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
    Location: In Time or in Space?

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SwordMaster » 15 Apr 2009 09:16

    In simple terms, Frank did not want humans to rely on any system that uses a starting point that is static. Because over time that static fact starting point key stone, can change and thus the entire system is flawed. All AI is still currently based on IF STATEMENTS. That’s why AI as a subject is basically flawed.
    I am a turd. Do not emulate me, or Omphalos shall mock you as well.
    User avatar
    SwordMaster
    Freakbanned
     
    Posts: 781
    Joined: 24 Feb 2009 20:35
    Location: Toronto

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Schu » 15 Apr 2009 19:35

    SwordMaster wrote:In simple terms, Frank did not want humans to rely on any system that uses a starting point that is static. Because over time that static fact starting point key stone, can change and thus the entire system is flawed. All AI is still currently based on IF STATEMENTS. That’s why AI as a subject is basically flawed.


    One could argue that human intelligence is also based on IF statements, just much more complex and refined.
    User avatar
    Schu
     
    Posts: 756
    Joined: 18 Dec 2008 00:51
    Location: Adelaide, Aussie

    Re

    Postby SadisticCynic » 15 Apr 2009 20:03

    Isn't everything we (think we) know based around some sort of IF statement? For example IF the universe follows logical laws/rules/whatever then: and follow with some conclusion based on evidence etc.

    Also we can only assume that what we perceive is real as far as I know. :think:

    Edit: sorry this should be in The Limits Of Logic; I pressed new topic instead of reply. :oops:

    EDIT: Merged to the proper topic. Omph.
    Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
    User avatar
    SadisticCynic
     
    Posts: 2004
    Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
    Location: In Time or in Space?

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby chanilover » 16 Apr 2009 09:36

    Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.
    "You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    chanilover
     
    Posts: 1639
    Joined: 18 Feb 2008 08:29

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 16 Apr 2009 22:55

    You mean like the tao orgy? :P
    I have heard of only one mistake that doesn’t have an explanation for a careful reader...with an open mind. (And, no, I’m not going to tell you what it is!) —KJA

    I don't like every writer's style; for instance, I have never been able to get through Ursula LeGuin, China Mieville, or Iain Banks, all of whom are critical darlings. —KJA

    I...had written a bunch of Star Wars and X-Files books...that proved not just that I'm a hack, but that I could write in somebody else's universe... —KJA
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Freakzilla » 16 Apr 2009 23:01

    I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

    Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?
    Image
    Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
    ~Pink Snowman
    User avatar
    Freakzilla
    Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
     
    Posts: 18083
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Omphalos » 17 Apr 2009 00:46

    chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.


    I would personally love to hear your take on this, CL.
    User avatar
    Omphalos
    Inglorious Bastard
     
    Posts: 6588
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:07
    Location: The Mighty Central Valley of California

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby loremaster » 17 Apr 2009 14:48

    moreh_yeladim wrote:
    loremaster wrote:My personal favourite from Frank was that "Logic may be fine for pyramid chess, but it's often too slow in real situations" (paraphrased from CH:D)

    Also, to humour chigger and try to postulate about future computational ability and the current limits of technology, does anyone know about this idea of quantum computing? It's a sort of thought experiment whereby utilising quantum phenomena we could have computers which render redundant many of todays security and computing features. An example would be a padlock, with any length code, and any number of potential symbols per place, STILL has a definite number of combinations. Quantum computing is supposed to be able to bypass this sort of thing.

    Actually, notice how quantum computing functions like Dune prescience in a way. Even when a problem is what we computing sorts call "NP-complete" (meaning that there's no algorithm to solve it quicker than trying every individual possibility), quantum computing can supposedly find a solution by trying all those possibilities in a quantum superposition and settling on the one that is correct. Guild Navigators are completely unnecessary!


    Thank you, moreh, this was the phenomena i was trying to discuss.

    I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.

    This fits nicely because:

    I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).

    And Sadistic Cynic:

    I havent even seen this idea of quantum encryption, but it sounds cool. give me a few days to read about it and i`ll get back to you.
    The HLP hasnt released Frank's notes yet, Brian hasn't got the handwriting quite right!
    loremaster
     
    Posts: 220
    Joined: 18 Feb 2008 04:24
    Location: Leicester

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SadisticCynic » 17 Apr 2009 17:14

    I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.


    This is a similar conclusion to the one I reached; I'm not totally :crazy: yet!

    This fits nicely because:

    I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).


    And this I love! Nice idea! :clap:
    Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
    User avatar
    SadisticCynic
     
    Posts: 2004
    Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
    Location: In Time or in Space?

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Phaedrus » 23 Apr 2009 13:56

    chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

    Freakzilla wrote:I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

    Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?


    Especially when Dune is full of references to the Tao. :roll:

    You could also say he stole his ideas on impermanence from the Greek guy who said that you can never step into the same river twice.

    Plenty of Herbert's stuff comes from existentialist philosophers. He quotes Kierkegaard and often paraphrases Nietzsche. Let's not get into all the political philosophers Herbert "steals" from. Or the other poets and writers. It adds to the work if you recognize it, and if you don't, at least the idea is there for you to think about.
    You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
    User avatar
    Phaedrus
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: 09 Feb 2008 04:35

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Phaedrus » 23 Apr 2009 13:58

    loremaster wrote:
    moreh_yeladim wrote:
    loremaster wrote:My personal favourite from Frank was that "Logic may be fine for pyramid chess, but it's often too slow in real situations" (paraphrased from CH:D)

    Also, to humour chigger and try to postulate about future computational ability and the current limits of technology, does anyone know about this idea of quantum computing? It's a sort of thought experiment whereby utilising quantum phenomena we could have computers which render redundant many of todays security and computing features. An example would be a padlock, with any length code, and any number of potential symbols per place, STILL has a definite number of combinations. Quantum computing is supposed to be able to bypass this sort of thing.

    Actually, notice how quantum computing functions like Dune prescience in a way. Even when a problem is what we computing sorts call "NP-complete" (meaning that there's no algorithm to solve it quicker than trying every individual possibility), quantum computing can supposedly find a solution by trying all those possibilities in a quantum superposition and settling on the one that is correct. Guild Navigators are completely unnecessary!


    Thank you, moreh, this was the phenomena i was trying to discuss.

    I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.

    This fits nicely because:

    I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).

    And Sadistic Cynic:

    I havent even seen this idea of quantum encryption, but it sounds cool. give me a few days to read about it and i`ll get back to you.


    Ugh. This is why I hate quantum mechanics. It only applies to really tiny things like electrons and photons, thus the QUANTUM part. Applying things like wave functions to people simply doesn't work in any rational way.
    You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
    User avatar
    Phaedrus
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: 09 Feb 2008 04:35

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby chanilover » 23 Apr 2009 16:33

    Phaedrus wrote:
    chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

    Freakzilla wrote:I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

    Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?


    Especially when Dune is full of references to the Tao. :roll:

    You could also say he stole his ideas on impermanence from the Greek guy who said that you can never step into the same river twice.

    Plenty of Herbert's stuff comes from existentialist philosophers. He quotes Kierkegaard and often paraphrases Nietzsche. Let's not get into all the political philosophers Herbert "steals" from. Or the other poets and writers. It adds to the work if you recognize it, and if you don't, at least the idea is there for you to think about.


    *sigh*

    No shit, Sherlock. :roll:
    "You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    chanilover
     
    Posts: 1639
    Joined: 18 Feb 2008 08:29

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Phaedrus » 23 Apr 2009 16:39

    That's basically what I was saying, chanilover. :?
    You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
    User avatar
    Phaedrus
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: 09 Feb 2008 04:35

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 23 Apr 2009 22:13

    Separated by a common tongue ... so tragic.

    :tissue2:

    So ... how about an uncommon tongue?!

    Image
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby SandChigger » 23 Apr 2009 23:21

    How you think I GOT PIX!!! :D

    Ahem. Enough derailing this thread.
    User avatar
    SandChigger
    KJASF Ground Zero
     
    Posts: 14490
    Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
    Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Tleszer » 24 Apr 2009 07:33

    Baraka Bryan wrote:did you just get a new webcam that you're playing with or something :P
    SandChigger wrote:How you think I GOT PIX!!! :D

    The limits of logic indeed. :lol:
    DUNE, as interpreted by a blue man with a green tushie
    User avatar
    Tleszer
     
    Posts: 2161
    Joined: 17 Feb 2008 18:02

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby cmsahe » 25 Apr 2009 22:48

    Freakzilla wrote:Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.

    No it isn't the future is fixed and solid as a rock, what changes, it's our path thru the Multiverse, whenever you take a decision or perform a measurement you change of Universe. Remember that different observers moving to different speeds measure different times for the events they witness, and different lengths for the physical objects. As was demonstrated by the General Theory of Relativity.
    Only the books written by Frank Herbert are canon.


    Who We Are and What We Stand For
    http://www.jacurutu.com/viewtopic.php?p=79778#p79778
    ----
    Carlos Santillan, aka cmsahe
    User avatar
    cmsahe
     
    Posts: 598
    Joined: 26 Aug 2008 22:40
    Location: Mexico City

    Re: The Limits of Logic

    Postby Schu » 25 Apr 2009 23:06

    cmsahe wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.

    No it isn't the future is fixed and solid as a rock, what changes, it's our path thru the Multiverse, whenever you take a decision or perform a measurement you change of Universe. Remember that different observers moving to different speeds measure different times for the events they witness, and different lengths for the physical objects. As was demonstrated by the General Theory of Relativity.


    The what?

    First of all, Freak was talking about Paul and Leto II, characters in a fictional universe where you can predict the future, not the state of physics theory.

    And bullshit "the future is fixed and solid". Taking even the many-worlds interpretation that you have, the path through the multiverse *is* our future and that path changes as you've said, so our future changes - it is not solid (not to mention that the multiverse is not an undisputed model of quantum physics, the copenhagen interpretation in fact is more accepted by physicists so I hear). Also, that was the special theory of relativity, not general. (the general theory of relativity is a generalisation of that to include Newton's gravitation theories).

    And yet again, you've missed the point there - relativistic effects can be predicted precisely, so if two observers can account for relativistic shifts, they will always measure the same event consistently. Probably what you're
    User avatar
    Schu
     
    Posts: 756
    Joined: 18 Dec 2008 00:51
    Location: Adelaide, Aussie

    PreviousNext

    Return to ˱

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

    cron