Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

[Reality Check]

An ignorant start with Bessel functions involved with cylindrical symmetry

16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.[/QUOTE]

The order of his cribbed equations glued together with gibberish gives a hint of ignorance about physics. First year physics undergraduates solve QM and know that they start with a system, write a Hamiltonian to describe it, plug the Hamiltonian into Schrodinger's equation and solve. First year QM problems generally have spherical symmetry and their solutions involve spherical harmonics. A few problems may have cylindrical symmetry (more common in 2nd year QM course problems) and the solutions have Bessel functions.
17 October 2017: An ignorant start with Bessel functions involved with solutions of systems with cylindrical symmetry.

His source is a paper on micro-tubules (cylinders) in the brain thus the Bessel functions would be expected by anyone who knows about QM or even physics in general. Ising models are not about cylinders .

 

[Myriad]

Max Tegmark, probably has a better grasp than you on this topic, and as Max Tegmark expressed in a youtube video here, physicists have long neglected to define the observer in much of the equations. (The observer being the intelligent agent)

Can you point out a physics equation that involves an observer, and point out which symbols or expressions in the equation refer to the observer?

In every case I've seen where a physicist refers to an "observer," including in all relativity and quantum mechanics examples, the word "observer" actually refers to a measurement, and in fact the word "observer" could be replaced with the word "measurement" without changing the meaning. Consciousness is not required for measurements to occur.

(If consciousness were required for "observers" in physics, then making a quantum computer would be much easier than it is! There would be no need for cryogenics. You would only need to keep people out of the room while the quantum computer is running. With no consciousnesses present, the system couldn't help staying in a state of quantum superposition for as long as needed! Of course, if some being did look at the computer while it was running, it would ruin the whole thing and you'd have to start over, kind of like when someone picked up an extension phone during a large 300-kilobyte file transfer by modem, in the 1980s. Alas, quantum computing is not actually that easy.)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Added question about bessel function on Ising Model Wiki Page

Replies to a list of ignorant math and physics word salad with an inane image and the idiocy that a couple of people communicating with him says that he cannot write ignorant word salad. What he actually writes includes ignorance and gibberish, for example

16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12035527#post12035527

The order of his cribbed equations glued together with gibberish gives a hint of ignorance about physics. First year physics undergraduates solve QM and know that they start with a system, write a Hamiltonian to describe it, plug the Hamiltonian into Schrodinger's equation and solve. First year QM problems generally have spherical symmetry and their solutions involve spherical harmonics. A few problems may have cylindrical symmetry (more common in 2nd year QM course problems) and the solutions have Bessel functions.
17 October 2017: An ignorant start with Bessel functions involved with solutions of systems with cylindrical symmetry.

His source is a paper on micro-tubules (cylinders) in the brain thus the Bessel functions would be expected by anyone who knows about QM or even physics in general. Ising models are not about cylinders .

Your comment above is false, as I did not refer to the bessel function itself as the ising model.

If you read the paper, you would see that such a bessel function has something to do with Zλ, concerning the bosonic riccati. (Analyse equations (8) though to (42))

The above is used as a boundary on the proposed computation, in a similar fashion to how Amin bounds his model in his quantum boltzmann experiment.

Edit: What is the meaning of this line: "This is not an exact form, except in three dimensions, where interactions between paths become important. The exact forms in high dimensions are variants of Bessel functions." from the Ising Model page?:


Footnote:
Btw, you are yet to answer my prior question.

Do you still maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (as I underlined here and asked here)?

Of course the answer to that question if you continued to maintain your answer about "impossibility", would be "no", given evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Can you point out a physics equation that involves an observer, and point out which symbols or expressions in the equation refer to the observer?
In every case I've seen where a physicist refers to an "observer," including in all relativity and quantum mechanics examples, the word "observer" actually refers to a measurement, and in fact the word "observer" could be replaced with the word "measurement" without changing the meaning. Consciousness is not required for measurements to occur.

(If consciousness were required for "observers" in physics, then making a quantum computer would be much easier than it is! There would be no need for cryogenics. You would only need to keep people out of the room while the quantum computer is running. With no consciousnesses present, the system couldn't help staying in a state of quantum superposition for as long as needed! Of course, if some being did look at the computer while it was running, it would ruin the whole thing and you'd have to start over, kind of like when someone picked up an extension phone during a large 300-kilobyte file transfer by modem, in the 1980s. Alas, quantum computing is not actually that easy.)

Refer to Tegmark's paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

 

[halleyscomet]

Refer to Tegmark's paper:



https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

So far you seem to be more interested in seeking attention than in exploring your AI ideas or improving your poor English.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

So far you seem to be more interested in seeking attention than in exploring your AI ideas or improving your poor English.

Seeking attention for what? (if not my papers)

And of what relevance is your question to Tegmark's paper?

Are you the one ironically seeking attention instead?

How does your statement/query relate to Myriad's earlier question? Do you feel Tegmark's paper does not approach Myriad's question?

If so, how does your statement/query approach your feeling above?

 

[fagin]

....

Btw, you are yet to answer my prior question.

.........

What is that silly little dancing man?

Dare you explain in words what you are implying about Squeegee Beckenheim, or are you lacking the courage of your convictions?

Still waiting.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Still waiting.

How is life as a waiter?

Do people give you a lot of tips?

 

[fagin]

Don't give up your day job, whatever that is.

Still waiting though.

Too scared to say what you wanted to?

I understand, your insecurity is palpable.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Don't give up your day job, whatever that is.

Still waiting though.

Too scared to say what you wanted to?

I understand, your insecurity is palpable.

What extra meaning do you garner I aimed to present?

The breadth of what needed to be expressed had long been outlined in a prior comment here.

PS: If you don't want to remain a waiter, you can maybe try to pursue other paths?

 

[fuelair]

Sure. I'm with Bengio on this matter. So far, it is unintelligible gibberish. There may, somewhere, be a kernel of some sort of original idea within it, but if it does exist, it has been entirely obscured by linguistic spaghetti.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is how it is, and I can think of no way to sugar coat that particular pill for you.

As to the embiggened, embrowned and emboldened, it does not exist and it is obscured ANYWAY with linguistic spaghetti. Which is all it could be based by any possible reading of the OP's posts.

 

[fuelair]

In other words, you possibly lack the intellect/knowledge/experience required to give a response, by explaining as requested here?

Was your response above a way to conceal ignorance?

Sorry to say it doesn't fool anybody, except probably the bandwagoners here...

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kyUToED.gif[/qimg]

Not really, it is much more my way of saying (as I indirectly did) that your posts made no real sense and had no relationship to anything that has come up in my reading in the scientific literature (esp. Physics, Chemistry and Biology - my primary fields). More specifically the terms and phrases used and the way they were used added nothing to the information presented.

If it helps, there are around 29 others posting in science who are in a similar boat as regards theorizing on fake or misunderstood elements of science which they are simply and clearly not at the level of knowledge necessary to rationally and accurately discuss the topics they seem to feel they are experts in. Obviously, due to forum rules I do not agree with and would love to see dropped/rescinded, I cannot name those persons.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Not really, it is much more my way of saying (as I indirectly did) that your posts made no real sense and had no relationship to anything that has come up in my reading in the scientific literature (esp. Physics, Chemistry and Biology - my primary fields). More specifically the terms and phrases used and the way they were used added nothing to the information presented.

If it helps, there are around 29 others posting in science who are in a similar boat as regards theorizing on fake or misunderstood elements of science which they are simply and clearly not at the level of knowledge necessary to rationally and accurately discuss the topics they seem to feel they are experts in. Obviously, due to forum rules I do not agree with and would love to see dropped/rescinded, I cannot name those persons.

It is odd that the relationship between the paper that you suggested and my work, could be summarized nicely in far less words than you used above. (Where no summary was given, but excuses instead)

Your words above just look like more ways to hide ignorance.

Anyway see this conversation between myself and someone who deals with cosmology/particle physics, to get an idea of what is taking place in my work.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here is where your issue is.

You continue to limit usually to mean many cases, when usually can mean mainly.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kyUToED.gif[/qimg]

That is your problem.

As I said before, I merely rephrased a few questions, and you can ask abaddon to fact check that. (Although I doubt Bengio will answer any more of his irrelevant questions)

Unless you can provide evidence to align with your version of the word usually, it is better to maintain silence...

Evidently, my "issue" is that I understand the English language better than you do.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe it's good to avoid mob logic:

Am I to take your reposting of an irrelevant post, instead of a counter-argumet as an admission that you have no counter-argument?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Here is where your issue is.

You continue to limit usually to mean many cases, when usually can mean mainly.

That is your problem.

As I said before, I merely rephrased a few questions, and you can ask abaddon to fact check that. (Although I doubt Bengio will answer any more of his irrelevant questions)

Unless you can provide evidence to align with your version of the word usually, it is better to maintain silence...

Evidently, my "issue" is that I understand the English language better than you do.

Are you saying usually cannot mean mainly?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Am I to take your reposting of an irrelevant post, instead of a counter-argumet as an admission that you have no counter-argument?

You really should probably consider the following quote:

Regardless of your burning focus on RealityCheck's bandwagon, it is not strange or novel to mention those words:

https://github.com/kuz/DeepMind-Atari-Deep-Q-Learner

https://keon.io/deep-q-learning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk

Do you think the authors in the above references refer to gibberish when they use terms such as "DeepMind-Atari-Deep-Q-Learner", or "Google DeepMind's Deep Q-learning playing atari", or "Click to Watch: DeepMind’s Atari Player"?

You should now see that RealityCheck's criticism was and is still quite irrelevant. (as I demonstrated here or here)

 

[halleyscomet]

Seeking attention for what? (if not my papers)

And of what relevance is your question to Tegmark's paper?

Are you the one ironically seeking attention instead?

How does your statement/query relate to Myriad's earlier question? Do you feel Tegmark's paper does not approach Myriad's question?

If so, how does your statement/query approach your feeling above?

There’s the problem. You’re not bringing positive attention to your work, only derision. To make matters worse you’re dismissing the legitimate concerns raised about your terrible communication skills as a “bandwagon.”

As for my presence here, I initially wanted to help you improve your communication skills. Your outright rejection of constructive criticism that doesn’t agree with what you want to hear has transitioned me into MST3K mode. Your efforts are a train wreck and I’m here to watch and comment on the flying shrapnel. You’re the Ed Wood of AI. Frankly, this thread is hilarious if one is capable of laughing at abject failure. After years of listening to the Distorted View podcast and watching John Waters films, such entertainment appeals to me.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

There’s the problem. You’re not bringing positive attention to your work, only derision. To make matters worse you’re dismissing the legitimate concerns raised about your terrible communication skills as a “bandwagon.”

As for my presence here, I initially wanted to help you improve your communication skills. Your outright rejection of constructive criticism that doesn’t agree with what you want to hear has transitioned me into MST3K mode. Your efforts are a train wreck and I’m here to watch and comment on the flying shrapnel. You’re the Ed Wood of AI. Frankly, this thread is hilarious if one is capable of laughing at abject failure. After years of listening to the Distorted View podcast and watching John Waters films, such entertainment appeals to me.

Consider the quote below:

Pity you don't do sarcasm.

I quite liked this quote about your misuse of language:

See my earlier post for the use of rectal excavation in the construction of artificial profundity.

I could also play that game, I could also switch in perfectly usable words you guys employ, with some other synonym that would not be appropriate in whatever scenario they were initially employed in.

This however, would not change that the initial words were properly used.

In the like, the initial words I use are appropriate.



Footnote:

For example, let me do a worthless switch on your statement above, in a similar way you guys would treat my words:

Pity Compassion you don't do sarcasm scorn.

As you can probably see, the switch above makes no darn sense (and you guys love doing these), and it attempts to solve an error that didn't initially exist.
It could be seen as somewhat amusing, however utterly worthless.

After that consider this quote:

If there is actually any valid criticism, I will undoubtedly acknowledge that. (This is partially how I improve myself)

However, much of the "corrections" suggested, were in the neighborhood of what I described here.

For example, a rare, actual correction occurred through a recent comment by novaphile, as I acknowledged here.

Btw any actual thoughts on thought curvature?

 

[halleyscomet]

Consider the quote below:











After that consider this quote:

So?

What’s your point?

You’re going in circles with rhetorical onanism.