• 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.

Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

BStrong said:
PRogrammingGodJordan said:
It is noteworthy that physicists aim to unravel the cosmos' mysteries, and so it is a mystery as to why Witten would select not to partake amidst the active machine learning field, especially given that:

(1) Manifolds apply non-trivially in machine learning.

(2) AI is one of mankind's most profound tools.

(3) AI is already performing nobel prize level tasks, very very efficiently.

(4) AI may need only be mankind's last invention.

Edit: duplicate number fixed.
Click to expand...

AI re-created what had already been done. The little gizmo didn't stay up all night working on it's own volition.
Click to expand...


Of what consequence is your comment?

Hint: It doesn't at all, remove the fact that machines are unavoidably reducing more and more cognitive tasks.



FOOTNOTE:
Also, here are other clearly physics related applications:

(1) Higgs Boson Machine Learning Challenge, dealing with physics at large hadron collider: https://www.kaggle.com/c/higgs-boson
(2) Finding τ → μμμ Machine Learning Challenge, yet another event, dealing with physics at large hadron collider https://www.kaggle.com/c/flavours-of-physics
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Look at the ignorance of thinking that math is based on "scientific evidence"! What you have is ignorance of mathematics and math gibberish as in a couple of threads.
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.

8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
I am not ignoring evidence of math ignorance and word salad that you have written:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.

8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
The definition of a supermanifold means that no supermanifold can be locally Euclidean.
There is a subset of supermanifolds that are locally super Euclidean. That means that they have a symmetry group that has operation analogous to the symmetry of Euclidean space. This subset is labeled Euclidean supermanifolds.

Your notation makes your makes gibberish.
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
For example (what you have read and cited before!): A supermanifold M of dimension (p,q) ...
Click to expand...

Once more, why bother to ignore evidence?

(A)
No where had I supposedly stated that "all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean". (Could you care to present evidence that remedies such an accusation?)
In fact, in contrast to your accusation, my earlier post (which preceded your accusation above) clearly expressed that "Supermanifold may encode as 'essentially flat euclidean super space' fabric".

No where above expresses that all supermanifolds were locally euclidean. Why bother to lie?


(B)
Anyway, as I had expressed then, they can be observed to possess some flat Riemannian metric, which entail locally euclidean description.



[imgw=140]http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg[/imgw]

Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.




FOOTNOTE
At any cost, I value your input, however wrongly such may occur a majority of the time.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Once more, why bother to ignore evidence?....
Click to expand...
You have presented only evidence of math salad for many months:
  1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
  2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
  3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
  4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
  5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
  6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
  8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
  9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
  10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
To which I can add:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
For example:
8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Gibberish "Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis" title.
I will go through the inanity of that PDF:
"Abstract" - so far so good!
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
"A particular manifold paradox emerges qua markov neural sequences’ confluence abound non-trivial causal instruction."
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies.
C∞(Rn)" is not nonsensical 'causal neural perturbation curvature' (see what you previously defined that math salad as :eek:). Followed by more nonsense.
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".
 
Last edited:
C_Felix said:
Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

No. No he cannot.
Click to expand...

Edward Witten is pretty cool. He has made some important contributions to physics. Of course that's his specialty, that is the field that he has a great deal of knowledge about and which he has spent a great deal of time thinking about.

Could he contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? Maybe, though it's not clear.

However, so can many others. I find it likely that his greatest potential contribution is to physics, which is the field that he is most qualified to contribute to, and which he has a proven record of doing.

Maybe I'm wrong in that guess. But I think that Witten is more well placed than any of us, including the OP, to assess which field he has the greatest chances of making meaningful contributions to. And given the OP's apparent reverence for his genius, I'd think that those two facts - his genius and his access to knowledge - suggest that he should simply admit that Witten's answer to this question is very likely to be more accurate than his own.
 
Giordano said:
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
Click to expand...

Interesting characterization. Let me see. I'm not sure what science I would be challenging since there is no theory for general AI. I don't think I can challenge something that doesn't exist.

Is my theory strange? I'm not really sure. It doesn't include any supernatural elements or depend on some undiscovered phenomenon. Maybe it's strange in that it doesn't depend on some popular dogmas like simulation or neural networks.

I don't think I'm under appreciated since I haven't accomplished what I set out to do. And, anything else that I may have accomplished hasn't been published so no one would be aware of it.

From time to time I think about posting an update on the research, but it usually doesn't seem to be worth the bother. Fairly standard.
 
Reality Check said:
You have presented only evidence of math salad for many months:
  1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
  2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
  3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
  4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
  5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
  6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
  8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
  9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
  10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
Click to expand...
An old hat.

We can see that you blundered above:

Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.




Reality Check said:
To which I can add:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
For example:
8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Gibberish "Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis" title.
I will go through the inanity of that PDF:
"Abstract" - so far so good!
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
"A particular manifold paradox emerges qua markov neural sequences’ confluence abound non-trivial causal instruction."
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies.
C∞(Rn)" is not nonsensical 'causal neural perturbation curvature' (see what you previously defined that math salad as :eek:). Followed by more nonsense.
Click to expand...


C∞π(Rnπ) is a 'novel' term, consisting of a novel organization, of pretty standard components.

"Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with policy π - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.

This means there is an overall model that may learn causal laws of physics (sample), in a reinforcement learning based setting.

The above is a bit lengthy, so I went with "causal neural perturbation curvature'" instead.



Reality Check said:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".
Click to expand...



I used the word axiomatizes, rather than 'axomatizes'.

Anyway, that term simply referred to the fundamental psuedo-code/scientific logic presented on github.

Here is the precise sentence, with the link that had been long attached in the paper:

"Ergo, the paradox axiomatizes."
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
Giordano said:
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
Click to expand...

Interesting characterization. Let me see. I'm not sure what science I would be challenging since there is no theory for general AI. I don't think I can challenge something that doesn't exist.

Is my theory strange? I'm not really sure. It doesn't include any supernatural elements or depend on some undiscovered phenomenon. Maybe it's strange in that it doesn't depend on some popular dogmas like simulation or neural networks.

I don't think I'm under appreciated since I haven't accomplished what I set out to do. And, anything else that I may have accomplished hasn't been published so no one would be aware of it.

From time to time I think about posting an update on the research, but it usually doesn't seem to be worth the bother. Fairly standard.
Click to expand...

As I expressed before (you likely missed it):

(1) The genius I especially underlined in the original post, is Witten.

(2) A degree of math of manifolds, is already apart of machine learning. (So there is no need for 'challenging accepted science')
 
Roboramma said:
Edward Witten is pretty cool. He has made some important contributions to physics. Of course that's his specialty, that is the field that he has a great deal of knowledge about and which he has spent a great deal of time thinking about.

However, so can many others. I find it likely that his greatest potential contribution is to physics, which is the field that he is most qualified to contribute to, and which he has a proven record of doing.

Maybe I'm wrong in that guess. But I think that Witten is more well placed than any of us, including the OP, to assess which field he has the greatest chances of making meaningful contributions to. And given the OP's apparent reverence for his genius, I'd think that those two facts - his genius and his access to knowledge - suggest that he should simply admit that Witten's answer to this question is very likely to be more accurate than his own.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Max Tegmark, is also a physicist, that has not undergone official artificial intelligence training, and yet, he has already contributed important work in the field of machine learning.

Tegmark presents consciousness as a mathematical problem, while Witten presents it as a likely forever unsolvable mystery.


Roboramma said:
Could he contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? Maybe, though it's not clear.
Click to expand...

It is unavoidable, he could contribute; manifolds (something Edward works on) applies empirically in machine learning.

One need not be a nobel prize winning physicist to observe the above.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
An old hat.
Click to expand...
I know that your ignorant math salad and gibberish is old hat, e.g. no supermanifold is locally Euclidean. That s a basic property of supermanifolds - they are locally "Grassmann", i.e. have a Grassmann algebra that explicitly violates rules for Euclidean spaces, specifically ab != ba.
For others:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn)

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
C∞π(Rnπ) is a 'novel' term, ...
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
The lie comes from your existing definition of C∞π(Rn) as different ignorant nonsense :eye-poppi!
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math

Thanks for the clarification on your Thought Curvature abstract:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
axiomatize = "1.To establish a set of axioms that describe or govern certain phenomena".
This is an axiom. A good example are the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
The ignorant gibberish is that some "paradox" establishes a set of axioms.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind

Into the introduction and:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
Deepmind’s atari q architecture encompasses non-pooling convolutions
Click to expand...
DeepMind is a "neural network that learns how to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans". It can play several Atari games. It does not have an architecture related to those Atari games. What DeepMind does have is "a convolutional neural network, with a novel form of Q-learning". I have found 1 Google DeepMind paper about the neural network architecture that explicitly includes pooling layers but not as an implemented architecture element, Exploiting Cyclic Symmetry in Convolutional Neural Networks.

What is missing in the PDF is any references for DeepMind.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I know that your ignorant math salad and gibberish is old hat, e.g. no supermanifold is locally Euclidean. That s a basic property of supermanifolds - they are locally "Grassmann", i.e. have a Grassmann algebra that explicitly violates rules for Euclidean spaces, specifically ab != ba.
For others:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
The lie comes from your existing definition of C∞π(Rn) as different ignorant nonsense :eye-poppi!
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math

Thanks for the clarification on your Thought Curvature abstract:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
axiomatize = "1.To establish a set of axioms that describe or govern certain phenomena".
This is an axiom. A good example are the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
The ignorant gibberish is that some "paradox" establishes a set of axioms.
Click to expand...



Where had I supposedly mentioned that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

And why do you deny the following:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.
Click to expand...
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As I expressed before (you likely missed it):

(1) The genius I especially underlined in the original post, is Witten.

(2) A degree of math of manifolds, is already apart of machine learning. (So there is no need for 'challenging accepted science')
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you posted. I also know where the flaws are in everything you talked about. For example, your claim that AI is making dramatic advances in cognition is hogwash There's no truth to it. The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse. The most common thing that Amazon's Alexa says is, "I don't understand what you just said." That's the default response. My post was in response to Giordano's characterization which seemed to include a fair amount of dishonesty.

I have not responded to what you've written because, as far as I can tell, you haven't said anything yet worth discussing.

Tegmark? Here he is back in 2014 jabbering away about emergent properties and Integrated Information Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM. That was three years ago. What advances in machine cognition have been made by either Tegmark or IIT since then? Well, none.

At 10:30. He says, "I think consciousness is the way that information feels when it is being processed."

Well, there you go then -- consciousness solved! I'm sorry but I can't take Tegmark seriously when he talks about consciousness. He's flailing in the dark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom