• 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

halleyscomet said:
Do you not have enough confidence in the theory to publish it without first having proven it experimentally? Do you have some sort of moral, ethical or philosophical objection to publishing a purely theoretical paper?
Click to expand...

Bengio, a pioneer in Deep Learning can have the leisure of posting papers on major peer reviewed journals, even without any semblance of experimental results. (An example is his recent Consciousness Prior Paper)

I am not a pioneer in machine learning, nor do I have a machine learning degree, so I don't have the same leisure as Bengio.

halleyscomet said:
It occurs to me, the work needed to break your overall theory down into a project that could be executed on a grid computing platform would itself constitute a publishable paper.

You seem to have put yourself in an interesting chicken and egg situation. You’re unwilling to publish a theoretical paper but without a theoretical paper you’re unlikely to get the grants needed to purchase the hardware to do the experiments you want to do. To make progress forward you need either publish a theoretical paper or break down your theory so that it can be run on a grid computing platform.

What is your plan?
Click to expand...

That occurrence is wrong...

An initial, albeit substantial degree of the structure to be tested, shall align with the requirements I priorly mentioned here.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Bengio, a pioneer in Deep Learning can have the leisure of posting papers on major peer reviewed journals, even without any semblance of experimental results. (An example is his recent Consciousness Prior Paper)



I am not a pioneer in machine learning, nor do I have a machine learning degree, so I don't have the same leisure as Bengio.
Click to expand...


Not with that kind of self-defeating attitude.

You’re your own worst enemy.
 
abaddon said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Here is Mordred's profile.

Here is one of Mordred's contributions.

Here is one of Mordred's interests.

Recall that I said Mordred deals with cosmology/particle physics. (I didn't mention Mordred had a PHD)
Click to expand...
How do you know "mordred" has a PhD? Did you simply take it on faith?
Where is Merlin's profile?
Or Lancelot's?
Or King Arthur's?

How about "My Little Pony"?
Click to expand...

What a worthless question.

I've highlighted, emboldened, underlined and coloured a relevant portion for you above.
 
Quote page 66 onward from your copy of "Geometric, Algebraic and Topological ..."

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
It's free for me....
Click to expand...
Then it is easy for you to quote page 66, etc with "more C∞(Rn) stuff " so that we do not have to guess at it being ignorance or a lie
12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
We need to see in that quote "C∞(Rn)" and that this is a Euclidean superspace (the other half of your assertion).
 
halleyscomet said:
Not with that kind of self-defeating attitude.

You’re your own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

Not "self-defeating", but reality instead.

Even though my paper goes beyond papers like Bengio's by presenting a way to consider experimentation for the structure I propose to begin with, I will cannot submit on arXiv. (Its not a bad system though, as this barrier allows the reviewers to focus on papers likely to contribute well)

One needs to get recommended by somebody with a sufficient amount of papers on arXiv, before even getting the chance to submit.

One good way to get recommendation, is to show benefits over existing paradigms, in some experimental way.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Not "self-defeating", but reality instead.



Even though my paper goes beyond papers like Bengio's by presenting a way to consider experimentation for the structure I propose to begin with, I will cannot submit on arXiv. (Its not a bad system though, as this barrier allows the reviewers to focus on papers likely to contribute well)



One needs to get recommended by somebody with a sufficient amount of papers on arXiv, before even getting the chance to submit.



One good way to get recommendation, is to show benefits over existing paradigms, in some experimental way.
Click to expand...



So you’re giving up on peer review publication because one venue is not likely to accept you?

This is another reason to rework it so you can list these luminaries you keep mentioning as Co-authors. Then they can submit the paper.
 
Reality Check said:
Then it is easy for you to quote page 66, etc with "more C∞(Rn) stuff " so that we do not have to guess at it being ignorance or a lie
12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
We need to see in that quote "C∞(Rn)" and that this is a Euclidean superspace (the other half of your assertion).
Click to expand...

Why bother, to expend energies there, when a prior quote of mine (as seen below) already supports my expressions?

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
RealityCheck said:
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?
Click to expand...
[IMGw=160]https://i.imgur.com/MrxleHs.jpg[/IMGw]

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
So you’re giving up on peer review publication because one venue is not likely to accept you?

This is another reason to rework it so you can list these luminaries you keep mentioning as Co-authors. Then they can submit the paper.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea.

Of course, that is what I am working on, as I mentioned prior to now, in a related comment here.
 
Last edited:
Covers a bit of of the same stuff as the existing Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research? thread.

Physicists in general do not need to study consciousness. There is little need to study consciousness in order to measure the current through a wire!
Some physicists think about whether consciousness has a role in physics.

Ditto for AI. Some physicists research AI and may use tools from physics to do so, e.g. want to use quantum computers. Most physicists do not need to study AI because it has no relevance to their research.

It is irrelevant that manifolds are "central to physics and mathematics".

One paper using the word manifold two times in the context of data does not make the manifolds from math or physics "quite prevalent" anywhere in AI.
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training
interpolation: to evaluate the coverage of the data manifold, we generated a sequence of images by linearly interpolating the codes of two given test images (for both specified and unspecified representations);
Click to expand...
Thus, 3(b) shows a reasonable coverage of the manifold with some abrupt changes.
Click to expand...
Plus the reference
[24] Scott Reed, Kihyuk Sohn, Yuting Zhang, and Honglak Lee. Learning to disentangle factors of variation with manifold interaction. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-14), pages 1431–1439, 2014.
Click to expand...

Simply put: Those physicists who need or want to to study consciousness or AI, are studying consciousness or AI.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
There is little need to study consciousness in order to measure the current through a wire!
Click to expand...

I don't know if how current flows through a wire can help to describe the conscious observer.

Reality Check said:
Some physicists think about whether consciousness has a role in physics.

Ditto for AI. Some physicists research AI and may use tools from physics to do so, e.g. want to use quantum computers. Most physicists do not need to study AI because it has no relevance to their research.
Click to expand...

Redundant, if you actually watched Tegmark's video, you would quickly find out that he is encouraging his physicist colleagues to study consciousness, so this means not surprisingly, that whether consciousness has a role in physics is questionable, particularly, among physicists. (especially his physicist colleagues)
However, some common sense tells that if you think about it logically, consciousness, that is the mechanism which allows the observer to achieve complex goals in a general learning manner, i.e. general intelligence, is reasonably nothing but some information driven process, bounded by the laws of physics, and thereafter, not surprisingly applicable in physics...
 
Reality Check said:
It is irrelevant that manifolds are "central to physics and mathematics".

One paper using the word manifold two times in the context of data does not make the manifolds from math or physics "quite prevalent" anywhere in AI.
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training
Click to expand...

[IMGw=260]https://i.imgur.com/MrxleHs.jpg[/IMGw]

That paper was merely a sample from much work being done regarding manifolds.

Here is a tip. When you see "disentangling factors" in relation to machine learning you are in the world of manifold learning.


Early Visual Concept Learning with Unsupervised Deep Learning, (June 2016)

Exponential expressivity in deep neural networks through transient chaos, (June 2016)

Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training, (November 2016)

...


Footnote:

[IMGw=400]https://i.imgur.com/58zzIPo.png[/IMGw]

It is not "irrelevant" that manifolds are central to physics and mathematics.
That physicists may work with these things, is quite relevant if they are to utilize this properties to study consciousness/artificial general intelligence.

Manifolds may afford models degrees of freedom (learning position, scale, size, etc), in temporal difference scenarios.

Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited IMG tags to IMGW. Overly large images are disruptive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RealityCheck said:
Simply put: Those physicists who need or want to to study consciousness or AI, are studying consciousness or AI.
Click to expand...

Yes, what you express above may likely be simply, but crucially, wrongly put.

[IMGw=160]https://i.imgur.com/KjmpRRu.png[/IMGw]

As Max Tegmark expressed in a youtube video here, physicists have long neglected to define the observer in much of the equations, and he particularly refers to the instance that not analyzing consciousness may be a giant obstacle in the aims of further non trivially unraveling the laws of physics.
 
John Jones said:
I'm not taking your word for it or anything else due to your inferior command of English. Can you think of any reason I should?
Click to expand...

[IMGw=260]https://i.imgur.com/4fCD9XZ.jpg[/IMGw]

Odd, I don't have these long standing English debates with people of high intellect, such as Bengio or people who deal with cosmology/particle physics.

Anyway, take a look at Max's video here, or buzz off instead, your choice.

Listen to his words, and ignore mine if you shall so desire.


Footnote:
The word "huh" or no response at all, shall be relegated to any further discussions about English of yours.
 
Cite the definition of disentangling factors that states that it always has manifolds

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...inane image, etc. snipped...
That paper was merely a sample from much work being done regarding manifolds.
Click to expand...
Read my post again. That was an irrelevant paper because there were no manifolds from math or physics in it, just a "data manifold".

Checked the next paper and you are wasting everyone's time - no mention of manifolds and an unsupported assertion:
12 October 2017: Cite the definition of disentangling factors that states that it always has math or physics manifolds in it.

ETA:
A thing being central to field A does not automatically make it central to another field. Physicists may work with the statistics of bosons and fermions so:
12 October 2017: Cite the use of Fermi or Bose statistics "to study consciousness/artificial general intelligence" :p!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom