Landmark Computer Science Proof

  • 8 Replies
  • 1345 Views
*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Landmark Computer Science Proof
« on: August 14, 2020, 08:04:56 pm »
This is a very interesting article about computational complexity

*

infurl

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 994
  • Humans will disappoint you.
    • Home Page
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2020, 12:03:44 am »
Very interesting article. I feel like I gained some useful insights from it.

*

LOCKSUIT

  • Emerged from nothing
  • Trusty Member
  • ******************
  • Hal 4000
  • *
  • 4329
  • First it wiggles, then it is rewarded.
    • Main Project Thread
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2020, 02:48:02 am »
maybe i misread it but um.........

What... How does entanglement improve prediction accuracy? I know it can give you more computation/ thinking and hence 'more data' but it doesn't give you new data like put the cure to cancer in your hands! You only get that from other data, using functions and computation to do inference. Entanglement can only run your machine at scale/ faster.

I mean, you feed data to your algorithm and only your algorithm can extract discoveries from that data. Therefore, entanglement, poured on your machine like salt, can only make it run faster, entanglement is not your algorithm nor data.
Emergent

*

infurl

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 994
  • Humans will disappoint you.
    • Home Page
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2020, 02:58:18 am »
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-quantum-paradox-reveals-contradiction-widely.html

Quote
"The paradox means that if quantum theory works to describe observers, scientists would have to give up one of three cherished assumptions about the world," said Associate Professor Eric Cavalcanti, a senior theory author on the paper.

"The first assumption is that when a measurement is made, the observed outcome is a real, single event in the world. This assumption rules out, for example, the idea that the universe can split, with different outcomes being observed in different parallel universes."

"The second assumption is that experimental settings can be freely chosen, allowing us to perform randomized trials. And the third assumption is that once such a free choice is made, its influence cannot spread out into the universe faster than light," he said.

I don't believe in magic, but this means I might have to.  :-\

*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2020, 12:12:19 am »
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-quantum-paradox-reveals-contradiction-widely.html

Quote
"The paradox means that if quantum theory works to describe observers, scientists would have to give up one of three cherished assumptions about the world," said Associate Professor Eric Cavalcanti, a senior theory author on the paper.

"The first assumption is that when a measurement is made, the observed outcome is a real, single event in the world. This assumption rules out, for example, the idea that the universe can split, with different outcomes being observed in different parallel universes."

"The second assumption is that experimental settings can be freely chosen, allowing us to perform randomized trials. And the third assumption is that once such a free choice is made, its influence cannot spread out into the universe faster than light," he said.

I don't believe in magic, but this means I might have to.  :-\

One of our problems with QM is that we can't give up Enistien's space.  Enistien's space is just 3D and no more. To form a wormhole you need enormous amounts of gravity (mass) to fold space in such a way as to allow for a wormhole. But, what if Enistien's space is just a gauge phenomena and quantum space is very different. What if particles render space? If particle's render space then the question becomes how many spatial degrees of freedom do particles have? So the motion of particles determines the number of dimensions expressed by matter. This then allows for dynamic on the fly manifolds to form from particle reactions! So something like entanglement can happen because the twin particles form a manifold that bridges the two particles in a hyper-dimension. Meaning; no matter how far apart the two particles are in 3D they are just right next door to one another in 4D. So, while non-local effects look unnatural to us they are actually local effects through a hyper-dimension.

The next question should be: Why don't we see hyper-dimensional motion at the gauge level? For that answer we have to realize how structures are formed in 3D.  Structures in 3D form through atoms' force carriers, each atom exchangs information with other atoms to nudge or place each other into a lattice. These force carriers have certain densites or strengths where they are actually distributions of mass over a volume of space. Realizing that fact about force fields having such strengths in 3D then understanding that 4D would dilute the strengths of these fields. So 4D has so much more volume than 3D that the field effects of atoms are negiligable to the point that no structures can form in 4D! You might then ask; well if particles render space how do we have a continuous 3D space-time continuum? Good question, atoms form dynamic manifolds that then overlap one anther so it looks and feels like a continuous manifold but is actually composed of micro manifolds that overlap one another.

Now imagine the big bang and matter flowing in all directions, inclusive of hyper-dimensions. Because of the strength of force fields in 3D those fields literally condense or consolidate matter into 3D space. Now a particle could move in Hyper-dimensional direction but the force carriers pull it back into 3D space. Now that motion in a 4D direction has to be small because the force carriers dilute very rapidly in 4D, but if the particle moves too far in a hyper-dimenionsal direction it's lost forever and who knows where it might end up. But those micro motions in 4D could help explain the wierdness of QM.

*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2020, 12:23:59 am »
Let me add that all 3D structures as a result of the force carriers cannot move as a whole in 4D. Only subatomic particles can move in 4D. The reason being is those 3D structures are exactly that 3D renderings, there is no 4D element to the rendering! So the 3D rendering without a 4D component is stuck in 3D it can not move in 4D, that information does not exist as part of the structure. Does that make sense? It's important to know why the 3D structures can't move in 4D nor can 4D support large 4D structures using atomic force carriers.

*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2020, 12:53:49 am »
Let me add that all 3D structures as a result of the force carriers cannot move as a whole in 4D. Only subatomic particles can move in 4D. The reason being is those 3D structures are exactly that 3D renderings, there is no 4D element to the rendering! So the 3D rendering without a 4D component is stuck in 3D it can not move in 4D, that information does not exist as part of the structure. Does that make sense? It's important to know why the 3D structures can't move in 4D nor can 4D support large 4D structures using atomic force carriers.

If you take this idea about subatomic particles having hyper-dimensional motion then we could build a weird propulsion system. Take some plasma and concentrate it to a section of a torus and somehow nudge those particles ever so slightly toward a 4D direction then Newton's "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." ends up nullify in 3D! Why? because the opposite reaction is in a 4D direction which results in no motion to accelerate or decelerate the object. So what, you say? Well now imagine that torus is spinning at a very high rate. If I can keep my plasma in 4D until I want to bring it back into 3D where the mass of the plasma is now effected by the 3D torus spinning which results in Newton's "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  in the direction that the centripital force manifest at that moment in time my spaceship will accelerate in the opposite direction. I then move the plasma back into the 4D  world until the section that can nudge and collect the plasma from 4D is back in position where I need to move my ship. You keep cycling this 4D nudging to get the thrust. It would work like a reactionless engine, no need to eject material out of the ship! Kinda like a hovering UFO... ::)

*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2020, 03:55:00 am »
maybe i misread it but um.........

What... How does entanglement improve prediction accuracy? I know it can give you more computation/ thinking and hence 'more data' but it doesn't give you new data like put the cure to cancer in your hands! You only get that from other data, using functions and computation to do inference. Entanglement can only run your machine at scale/ faster.

I mean, you feed data to your algorithm and only your algorithm can extract discoveries from that data. Therefore, entanglement, poured on your machine like salt, can only make it run faster, entanglement is not your algorithm nor data.

The advantage of entanglement isn't just faster but within pragmatic time scales that allow for verification. Whereas classical computing you never know if you need to compute more or it's a lost cause.

*

frankinstien

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 314
    • Knowledgeable Machines
Re: Landmark Computer Science Proof
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2020, 07:25:27 pm »
Looks like I might be right:D

 


Autonomous Rover
by infurl (Home Made Robots)
Today at 03:52:16 am
humor
by LOCKSUIT (General AI Discussion)
Today at 01:16:34 am
What's everyone up to ?
by LOCKSUIT (General Chat)
Today at 01:13:09 am
List of MMO Games for 2020
by Dat D (General Chat)
September 24, 2020, 04:29:28 am
Machine learning for fun and profit.
by infurl (AI Programming)
September 23, 2020, 12:53:45 am
Friday Funny
by LOCKSUIT (General Chat)
September 21, 2020, 12:46:55 am
what is the end game for AI ?
by frankinstien (General AI Discussion)
September 20, 2020, 11:34:13 pm
Releasing full AGI/evolution research
by LOCKSUIT (General Project Discussion)
September 20, 2020, 09:14:07 pm
New model beats GPT3
by LOCKSUIT (AI News )
Today at 01:19:53 am
Robotic vacuum cleaner news.
by infurl (Robotics News)
September 22, 2020, 12:29:53 am
GPT-f SOTA AMTP
by infurl (AI News )
September 13, 2020, 12:56:47 am
Battle dogs!
by LOCKSUIT (Robotics News)
September 12, 2020, 04:27:46 pm
Artificial Intelligence Easily Beats Human Fighter Pilot in DARPA Trial
by LOCKSUIT (AI News )
September 12, 2020, 04:25:46 pm
Important memristor breakthrough.
by infurl (AI News )
September 07, 2020, 12:57:06 am
AllenAct for research in embodied AI
by infurl (AI News )
September 01, 2020, 01:27:35 am

Users Online

101 Guests, 1 User

Most Online Today: 117. Most Online Ever: 528 (August 03, 2020, 06:16:11 am)

Articles