Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
What this suggests is that I probably have a better education in cosmology and particle physics than Mordred (it was a MSc not a PhD). One difference is that they seem have a fuller background in the mathematical background of QFT (group theory). I did a theoretical physics degree and did not have the time to add a post-graduate math course that covered this. So I have to reply on supplementary reading, e.g. "Penrose's Road to Reality".
Why do physicists need to study consciousness /artificial general intelligence?
This thread concerns a discussion about why physicists need to study consciousness, and probably involve themselves in the development of artificial general intelligence.
He gives an entertaining talk in the tech-vancouver video below, about why the development of artificial general intelligence is crucial for mankind.
Extra: See also a talk here, by Suzanne Gildert here (She also left Dwave, to start Kindred Ai. She has an Quantum Physics PHD as well, and used to work on superconducting chips at Dwave).
Secondly, 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)
[imgw=250]https://i.imgur.com/ZEPAqGb.png[/imgw] Alert: Notably, when I refer to consciousness below, I echo Bengio's words from one of his recent papers, "I do not refer here to more elusive meanings that have been attributed to the word “consciousness” (like qualia (Kriegel, 2014)), sticking instead to the notion of attentive awareness in the moment, our ability to focus on information in our minds which is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and the control of behaviour."
As far as science goes, consciousness is likely definable in terms of very complex equations, from disciplines, like Physics; as an example, degrees of general structures such as manifolds central to physics and mathematics, are now quite prevalent in the study of Deep Learning.
Footnote:
As I indicate in the content above, there are two crucial end points:
(1) Physics intends to describe the cosmos, and as Max Tegmark mentions, a non trivial portion of physics, namely the observer has long eluded physics, and so the observer's framework/consciousness (as described in the alert above) warrants non-trivial analysis/development.
12 October 2017: An insult that I do not know about the fields of mathematic or physics.
A post graduate qualification in theoretical physics means I know enough to recognize math and physics and especially English gibberish.
12 October 2017: Links to his repeated lie of "shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.".
What this suggests is that I probably have a better education in cosmology and particle physics than Mordred (it was a MSc not a PhD). One difference is that they seem have a fuller background in the mathematical background of QFT (group theory). I did a theoretical physics degree and did not have the time to add a post-graduate math course that covered this. So I have to reply on supplementary reading, e.g. "Penrose's Road to Reality".
I will comment.
C∞ is a classification of things being infinitely differentiable. For example a complex function can be infinitely differentiable and we write this as "a C∞ complex function".
Rn is a Euclidean space.
It is a lie to state that C∞(Rn) is a Euclidean superspace. It is math word salad. Charitably it is an irrelevant assertion that a Euclidean space is infinitely differentiable.
A mathematician commented on that nonsense months ago:
That is about 6 months of: 12 October 2017: The C∞(Rn) lie (not a Euclidean superspace). 12 October 2017: Ignoring 9 posts detailing ignorant usage of math from a mathematician.
ETA: 12 October 2017: A lie about a Wikipedia article which does not have any C∞(Rn). Supermanifold
A supermanifold M of dimension (p,q) is a topological space M with a sheaf of superalgebras, usually denoted OM or C∞(M), that is locally isomorphic to C ∞ ( R p ) ⊗ Λ ∙ ( ξ 1 , … ξ q ) {\displaystyle C^{\infty }(\mathbb {R} ^{p})\otimes \Lambda ^{\bullet }(\xi _{1},\dots \xi _{q})} C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^p)\otimes\Lambda^\bullet(\xi_1,\dots\xi_q), where the latter is a Grassmann algebra on q generators.
12 October 2017: An insult that I do not know about the fields of mathematic or physics.
A post graduate qualification in theoretical physics means I know enough to recognize math and physics and especially English gibberish.
12 October 2017: Links to his repeated lie of "shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.".
I didn't comment on your knowledge of the fields of "mathematic" (notably an adjective) or physics.
I simply outlined your demonstrated lack of Machine Learning knowledge here, or as I underlined in the spoiler below, found here:
From prior instances, you appear to demonstrate lack of awareness of basic machine learning know how.
For example, on 15 August 2017, when I underlined in the paper, Deepmind's atari q model, that excluded pooling, why did you then go on to discuss some paper that including pooling? (See your original responsehere)
Why did you go searching for pooling use in Deepmind models after I had underlined that such convolutional neural net based models excluded pooling in atari q?
Was that not a false intuition of yours that atari q indeed, included pooling, or possibly, that neural nets with convolutional layers could not exclude pooling?
Why go on to search for something that merely included pooling if your expectations were supposedly comprised of models that naturally excluded pooling?
That is about 6 months of: 12 October 2017: The C∞(Rn) lie (not a Euclidean superspace). 12 October 2017: Ignoring 9 posts detailing ignorant usage of math from a mathematician.
12 October 2017: A lie about a Wikipedia article which does not have any C∞(Rn). Supermanifold
Refer for example, to C∞(Rn) stuff here, relating to Lie Superalgebras/Superalgebras
Or start at page 66 for more C∞(Rn) stuff here, relating to Lie Superalgebras/Superalgebras
You quoted my list of your math, physics and English gibberish and so did comment on my knowledge..
The many repeats of your insult and lie about my machine learning knowledge is a separate matter.
12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces.
There is not one "superspace" in it! It may be a lie that the paper contains C∞(Rn) stuff unless he provides a exact citation. ProgrammingGodJordan?
12 October 2017: A citation of a book costing $NZ144!
I will not spend that much money when it is likely that it is a lie that it states that C∞(Rn) is a Euclidean superspace.
12 October 2017: A citation of a book costing $NZ144!
I will not spend that much money when it is likely that it is a lie that it states that C∞(Rn) is a Euclidean superspace.
12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces.
There is not one "superspace" in it! Iy may be a lie that the paper contains C∞(Rn) stuff unless he provides a exact citation. ProgrammingGodJordan?
The C∞(Rn) stuff here, is concerned with Superalgebras, as you will see by referring to Reference 13 from the text.
Reading page 4 and onwards, you see that reference 13 (or referenced author "Carchedi") ties with Superalgebras or differentiable C∞ structures, in the neighbourhood of supersymmetry or superspace.
It is still: 12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces.
The body of the paper does not even have the word "super"! There are 2 references to superalgebras.
So are you lying about reference 13 having C∞(Rn) "stuff" including the bit that makes your statement into gibberish (it is a Euclidean superspace)....
ETA: no "superspace" ....
ETA: no "euclid" ...
ETA: does not seem to be any "Rn" ...
ETA: the paper is "Homological Algebra for Superalgebras of Differentiable Functions" so plenty of "C∞(" but no "C∞(R".
This 12 October 2017: A lie that C∞(Rn) "stuff" is in reference 13 ("Homological Algebra for Superalgebras of Differentiable Functions")
Your lack of machine learning knowledge is clear to see for everybody here.
Are you underestimating the intellect of the readers?
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I simply outlined your demonstrated lack of Machine Learning knowledge here, or as I underlined in the spoiler below, found here:
From prior instances, you appear to demonstrate lack of awareness of basic machine learning know how.
For example, on 15 August 2017, when I underlined in the paper, Deepmind's atari q model, that excluded pooling, why did you then go on to discuss some paper that including pooling? (See your original responsehere)
Why did you go searching for pooling use in Deepmind models after I had underlined that such convolutional neural net based models excluded pooling in atari q?
Was that not a false intuition of yours that atari q indeed, included pooling, or possibly, that neural nets with convolutional layers could not exclude pooling?
Why go on to search for something that merely included pooling if your expectations were supposedly comprised of models that naturally excluded pooling?
12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces.
There is not one "superspace" in it! Iy may be a lie that the paper contains C∞(Rn) stuff unless he provides a exact citation. ProgrammingGodJordan?
The C∞(Rn) stuff here, is concerned with Superalgebras, as you will see by referring to Reference 13 from the text.
Reading page 4 and onwards, you see that reference 13 (or referenced author "Carchedi") ties with Superalgebras or differentiable C∞ structures, in the neighbourhood of supersymmetry or superspace.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
!)
