 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/23/2003 20:30 |   | | | | | | | | | | |
Eray Ozkural wrote @ 7/22/2003 9:55:00 PM:
Is this the junk you are doing on this site? To create hype?
You really are pathetic.
__
Eray Ozkural
CS Dept., Bilkent Univ. Ankara
| |
So are your manners, sir.
| | |
| | |
ICEBreaker |
| | | | | | posted 7/25/2003 07:47 | | | | | | | | | | As Pennywise pointed out, the Turing "test" is irrelevant, which by the way isn't exactly a test that subscribes to scientific methodology. An excellent look up table (or a future search engine connected to the internet) with no intelligence could pass the Turing test. On the other hand, a true AI might not pass the Turing test because it does not think like a human. Thus the Turing test is nothing more than an amusing exercise which serves no purpose.
| | |
| | |
Arthur
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/25/2003 14:46 | | | | | | | | | | AI has been solved, and AI4U describes how AI has been solved with
the Mind-1.1 AI software based on the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U --
is freely readable online at the publisher with the source of
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Mind.1.1 AI.
Traditional AI textbooks are only preliminary to coding real AI.
AIMA prepares you to study the artificial intelligence of AI4U.
AI4U at Amazon needs a thoughtful review by students of AI to
explain how AI4U teaches the solution of the main AI problems.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html is the AI theory.
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html reviews Mentifex AI.
Whoever buys AIMA, also buy or read AI4U to code true AI Minds.
| | |  aima-talk * AI: A Modern Approach: Help for the text | | |
| | |
Ribald
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/25/2003 19:13 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Arthur wrote @ 7/25/2003 2:46:00 PM:
AI has been solved, and AI4U describes how AI has been solved with
the Mind-1.1 AI software based on the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U --
is freely readable online at the publisher with the source of
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Mind.1.1 AI.
Traditional AI textbooks are only preliminary to coding real AI.
AIMA prepares you to study the artificial intelligence of AI4U.
AI4U at Amazon needs a thoughtful review by students of AI to
explain how AI4U teaches the solution of the main AI problems.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html is the AI theory.
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html reviews Mentifex AI.
Whoever buys AIMA, also buy or read AI4U to code true AI Minds.
| |
Your link doesn't work, it says message 189 does not exist.
You are now repeating the same thing you said before, which is clearly an attempt at self-advertising your book, and promoting yourself as the person that "solved ai".
You never responded to the valid questions in the other thread regarding evidence of the efficacy of your theory of mind. If you continue posting such outrageous claims without providing some form of evidence that they are valid you will very likely be labeled a charlatan. I personally feel that would be a shame.
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/25/2003 20:09 | | | | | | | | | | My turn to agree completely. Stop evading questions while blowing your own horn, Arthur.
| | |
| | |
Charlatan?
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2003 03:44 | | | | | | | | | | Arthur here. Maybe I am a charlatan, without even being aware of it myself.
Anyway, I seem to have ticked off Peter Norvig (in the message linked to below), the co-author of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach ("AIMA").
Peter! If you are reading this message, or if word of it gets back to you, don't just delete my offending post #189, delete also some of the smut that has been piling up. Criminy! It's embarassing to send people to aima-talk where they are exposed to a bunch of lewd, smutty messages that you and Stuart Russell have left hanging there. 'Nuff said.
When I say on aima-talk:
> The book AI4U is a supplement to the book AIMA (and other AI
> textbooks).
I hope that it is clear that I intend AI4U not to be an official supplement to AIMA, but rather let's-code-AI supplement to ALL AI textbooks.
Why do so many AI textbooks teach about everything BUT artificial intelligence?
Why does the Mitchell book cost over a hundred dollars?
Why won't the AI Establishment let me play AI with the fellas?
Please notice that I wrote that AI4U is completely and free-of-charge readable on-line at the iUniverse publisher.
As for the unanswered questions of the other thread, patience, please.
| | | aima-talk * Post 190 reprise of deleted post 189 :-) | | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2003 08:11 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Charlatan? wrote @ 7/26/2003 3:44:00 AM:
Arthur here. Maybe I am a charlatan, without even being aware of it myself.
Anyway, I seem to have ticked off Peter Norvig (in the message linked to below), the co-author of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach ("AIMA").
Peter! If you are reading this message, or if word of it gets back to you, don't just delete my offending post #189, delete also some of the smut that has been piling up. Criminy! It's embarassing to send people to aima-talk where they are exposed to a bunch of lewd, smutty messages that you and Stuart Russell have left hanging there. 'Nuff said.
When I say on aima-talk:
> The book AI4U is a supplement to the book AIMA (and other AI
> textbooks).
I hope that it is clear that I intend AI4U not to be an official supplement to AIMA, but rather let's-code-AI supplement to ALL AI textbooks.
Why do so many AI textbooks teach about everything BUT artificial intelligence?
Why does the Mitchell book cost over a hundred dollars?
Why won't the AI Establishment let me play AI with the fellas?
Please notice that I wrote that AI4U is completely and free-of-charge readable on-line at the iUniverse publisher.
As for the unanswered questions of the other thread, patience, please.
| |
Maybe some of your questions answer themselves, Arthur.
Your work, life-work maybe, is presented in a monolithic way. Questioning one detail equals total rejection in your eyes. I'd try to see that differently.
Hitching on somebodies bandwagon, even unintentionally is understandable, but so is their reaction. How would you react if the reverse were the case?
If you ask why so many AI textbooks teach about everything *but* AI, you answer the other question why the fellows won't let you play. You've already condemned them, and yet feel shut out for no good reason.
If you wonder why a book costs more than 100 bucks, while your stuff is free, are you saying that you're doubting your own marketing acumen?
I hope you can see the meaning behind these remarks, and start taking good advice for what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. No critique pour la critique, no reason for jubilation either. Just more details to keep an eye on, as usual. Such is life.
And I'm still waiting for an answer as to how you would *really* solve the volition problem. It's not that I disagree with your analysis, just its conclusion. ;)
| | |
| | |
Arthur
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2003 15:16 | | | | | | | | | | Rob Hoogers posted 7/26/2003 08:11
> And I'm still waiting for an answer as to how you would *really*
> solve the volition problem. It's not that I disagree with your
> analysis, just its conclusion. ;)
As a start, in case I do a write-up and post it to the other thread,
today I have updated the Volition page at the end of the link below.
Most of the Volition Doc changes thus far are very minor, but I
have laboriously gone through the "Nolarbeit Theory Journal" and
expanded the number of topical volition links up to fourteen.
James Pennywise has been so gentlemanly and so scholarly --
as is apparently his nature -- in these discussions, that I
am making sure to add a link to CogNews as I update webpages.
Either here or in the other thread, I would very much like to
see any specific questions of Rob Hoogers or of other persons
about volition and motorium theory.
| | | Volition Module for Robot Mind Software: AI has been solved | | |
| | |
Gonjin |
| | | | | | posted 8/2/2003 08:54 | | | | | | | | | | Arthur,
In theory5 I agree with many of the precepts although I would think that a few things are either inadvertantly or purposefully left out of the text, which brings rise to the following questions:
1) Aren't thoughts themselves sensory input?
2) How does this model explain an original thought, based on no previous experience?
3) Where is the 'I' that drives the original impulses,
and can learn to bridge the gap between the concious and unconsious brain activities. (notice I am explicitly not saying mind activities here.)
4) What about conclusions based on a lack of sensory input?
lastly
5) What about the perspective based scalar reference relativity of sensory input.
ie:
1) thoughts themselves can intrude without purpose or control into the mind, and many who practice various types of concentration techniques have been able to circumvent this; thus controlling the sense.
2) an original thought would fly in the face of almost all empirical evidence and previous experiences, and would typically be called aberrant, yet in many cases is a newly found truism.
3) Given the erroneous (IMHO) phsycho babble about survival being the most basic impulse; where does this derive from in your model? If genetically then how does the model explain over-riding that impulse for a belief?
3b)For part two of that question, how does the model explain the learned ability of some to control blood flow to parts of the body, or control other systems to such an extent that the typical rules of that system are conciously overriden?
4) When a person 'feels' that something is wrong, and the body takes action without ever having had any sensory input... like when someone throws something at you from behind, and you dodge it?
5) When you purposefully kick something bare footed vs. when you accidently stub your toe? Or when 57 degrees is a warm t-shirt type of day during the winter and a grab the thick down jacket type of day during the summer? Or, how someone tapping a table may not bother you (you don't really even hear it) for hours then you finally notice it and it irritates you to the extreme one day, and the next the same situation occures and you laugh about it.
Anyway, those are just a few questions that your theory hasn't quite answered for me yet (which I have been trying to figure out for a long time).
/Gonjin
PS- would this solved AI ever have the thought of thinking about thinking?
| | |
| | |
Arthur T. Murray
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/2/2003 15:39 | | | | | | | | | | Gonjin posted 8/2/2003 08:54
> Arthur,
>
> In theory5 I agree with many of the precepts although I would think
> that a few things are either inadvertantly or purposefully left out
> of the text, which brings rise to the following questions:
ATM:
Gonjin, I attempt to answer your questions not because I am an
arrogant know-it-all, but because it behooves me to defend and
elucidate the "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" (cfTOM for short).
Gong! This post is my first-ever use of the acronym "cfTOM" --
which looks like the Latin "confer" (or "compare") plus TOM,
and nicely the lower-case "cf" allows the upper-case "TOM"
to retain its importance as the class: Theory of Mind.
Now if someone else would like to describe a theory like
soarTOM -- the "State, Operator And Result" theory of mind;
actTOM -- for the ACT-R theory;
agiTOM -- for the Artificial General Intelligence of Goertzel, et. al.;
etc., then perhaps we may have a common reference scheme for discussion.
I have taken the liberty of correcting spelling for easier reading.
>
> 1) Aren't thoughts themselves sensory input?
Yes IMHO, insomuch as deep mindcore Psi thoughts become dynamic enough
to energize associative tags which in turn re-activate sensory engrams.
http://mind.sourceforge.net/reentry.html describes reentry of thoughts.
> 2) How does this model explain an original thought, based on no previous experience?
All thoughts, original or not, are based on previous experience.
A strikingly original thought -- such as E=mc^2 of Einstein -- is
based on finding connections that no one noticed (published) before.
> 3) Where is the 'I' that drives the original impulses, and can learn
> to bridge the gap between the conscious and unconscious brain activities.
> (notice I am explicitly not saying mind activities here.)
In the cfTOM, the "I" or "ego" is the concept-fiber of self reduplicated
and ganged together so massively as to constitute a system-wide perfusion
of the entity qua entity, always ready and nearby to interact with other
concepts -- with the sum total of all experience, feelings and motor options.
> 4) What about conclusions based on a lack of sensory input?
Ah, a splendid question! Here we get into abstract concepts, such as
"honesty" or "courage." I suspect that once we give a name to such a
concept, it is instantiated over time with specific examples which
carry so great a collective weight of secondary associations that
we can think abstractly by sort of skimming over the associations.
Then we use the abstract concepts to draw abstract conclusions.
> lastly
> 5) What about the perspective based scalar reference relativity of sensory input.
You seem to have posted 8/2/2003 05:21 about the same subject in the thread
of Thomas Gail Haws posted 7/31/2003 on "AI research and human foibles" at
http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=8609 (q.v.).
>
> ie:
> 1) thoughts themselves can intrude without purpose or control
> into the mind, and many who practice various types of concentration
> techniques have been able to circumvent this; thus controlling the sense.
> 2) an original thought would fly in the face of almost all empirical
> evidence and previous experiences, and would typically be called
> aberrant, yet in many cases is a newly found truism.
> 3) Given the erroneous (IMHO) psychobabble about survival being
> the most basic impulse; where does this derive from in your model?
http://mind.sourceforge.net/volition.html describes the will
as being able to integrate all cognition and all prolonged thought
in taking action upon a motor option sugested by sensorimotor memory.
All considerations of survival are thus brought to bear upon even
the most minor decisions, such as what side of the street to walk on,
or what color of clothing to wear in the woods during hunting season.
> If genetically then how does the model explain over-riding that
> impulse for a belief?
If I believe that my wife and children ought to survive even if it
costs my own life, then my own impulse to survive is cognitively
outweighed by a massive complex of fundamental considerations.
> 3b) For part two of that question, how does the model explain the
> learned ability of some to control blood flow to parts of the body,
> or control other systems to such an extent that the typical rules
> of that system are conciously overriden?
Thank you for the chance to mention that the cfTOM suggests that
sensory-to-motor linkages are established during human infancy,
and that simple feedback loops permit fine-tuned motor control.
> 4) When a person 'feels' that something is wrong, and the body
> takes action without ever having had any sensory input... like
> when someone throws something at you from behind, and you dodge it?
You still need a sensory trigger, such as a tell-tale noise or
an explicable change in the circumambient lighting patterns.
> 5) When you purposefully kick something bare footed vs. when you
> accidently stub your toe? Or when 57 degrees is a warm t-shirt type
> of day during the winter and a grab the thick down jacket type of day
> during the summer? Or, how someone tapping a table may not bother you
> (you don't really even hear it) for hours then you finally notice it
> and it irritates you to the extreme one day, and the next the same
> situation occurs and you laugh about it.
The searchlight of attention operates within such constraints as
the pre-decison time allotted, the urgency of other trains of thought,
and the general mood of the thinker -- such as irritable one day,
happy and forgiving the next.
>
> Anyway, those are just a few questions that your theory hasn't
> quite answered for me yet (which I have been trying to figure out
> for a long time).
Anyone who thinks that there is something not quite right or dead wrong
with the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind (cfTOM) might consider explaining
it to other people for clarity, or webhosting their alternative xyzTOM.
>
> /Gonjin
>
> PS- would this solved AI ever have the thought of thinking about thinking?
Yes -- in stages beyond the Mind-1.1 release in the AI4U textbook of AI.
On Usenet in news:comp.ai.philosophy a discussant asked on 01 Aug 2003:
> Shouldn't a post called "AI has been solved" be written
> by the AI program in question itself?
I answered:
> No, AI has been solved only at the most rudimentary levels:
>
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html -- theory of mind;
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- software;
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U textbook.
| | | Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind (cfTOM) for Artificial Intelligence | | |
| | |
Gonjin |
| | | | | | posted 8/3/2003 10:35 | | | | | | | | | | *Long*
Arthur,
Thanks for the quick reply, and the spelling corrections! ;)
"Gonjin, I attempt to answer your questions not because I am an arrogant know-it-all, but because it behooves me to defend and elucidate the "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" (cfTOM for short)."
I sincerely hope you didn't get the feeling I was attacking as that wasn't my intention at all. You newly christened theory has drawn my interest for a few years and has helped me to clarify in my own mind some concepts. For that I thank you.
regarding #1 =>
http://mind.sourceforge.net/reentry.html does indeed do a good job of describing how cfTOM deals with thoughts as input through reEntry(). How would cfTOM go about explaining dynamic control, or learned control (at any period of age) over the reEntry() module itself. Aahhh, a thought just came to me: it would need to learn to recode its' own reEntry() module. :) I like that. though this would mean that modules would need to be able to be hot swappable.
regarding #2 =>
I agree that "All thoughts, original or not, are based on previous experience.", but I still don't see how cfTOM explains my example:
'an original thought would fly in the face of almost all empirical evidence and previous experiences, and would typically be called aberrant, yet in many cases is a newly found truism.'
What happens when the conclusion is contrary to the thoughts that generate them? It seems to me most humans can't or don't allow themselves to reach these kinds of conclusions, hence the lack of truly unique ideas and thoughts. Perhaps another way of asking this is how is the mental shifting of perspective handled by cfTOM?
regarding #3 =>
"In the cfTOM, the "I" or "ego" is the concept-fiber of self reduplicated and ganged together so massively as to constitute a system-wide perfusion of the entity qua entity, always ready and nearby to interact with other concepts -- with the sum total of all experience, feelings and motor options."
I apologize, but I'll have to think on my response to this more. I will say now that I disagree with the cfTOM on this. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't 'feel' like this defines 'I' well enough.
your response to my example:
"3b) For part two of that question, how does the model explain the learned ability of some to control blood flow to parts of the body, or control other systems to such an extent that the typical rules of that system are consciously overridden?"
was
"Thank you for the chance to mention that the cfTOM suggests that sensory-to-motor linkages are established during human infancy, and that simple feedback loops permit fine-tuned motor control."
Does that mean cfTOM suggests that ALL sensory-to-motor linkages are learned from experience? If this is the case how would a heart pumping have been learned?
regarding #4 =>
"Here we get into abstract concepts, such as "honesty" or "courage." I suspect that once we give a name to such a concept, it is instantiated over time with specific examples which carry so great a collective weight of secondary associations that we can think abstractly by sort of skimming over the associations. Then we use the abstract concepts to draw abstract conclusions."
cfTOM should be able to build this type of concept over time like humans. Personally I think a genetic and a cosmological input play a part in this as well. More so than experience for some people.
Your response to my physical phenomena 'ie' #4:
"You still need a sensory trigger, such as a tell-tale noise or an explicable change in the circumambient lighting patterns."
seems to say that cfTOM assumes there is always at least some sort of sensory input from the primary 5 senses. Is that correct?
regarding #5 =>
I did post of scalar sensory input in that thread and your reponse to my 'ie' #5:
"The searchlight of attention operates within such constraints as the pre-decision time allotted, the urgency of other trains of thought, and the general mood of the thinker -- such as irritable one day, happy and forgiving the next."
pretty much answers the question of what happens, but not how. Is there a particular module that has already been coded that handles this or does it need to be created still?
Your statement:
"http://mind.sourceforge.net/volition.html describes the will as being able to integrate all cognition and all prolonged thought in taking action upon a motor option suggested by sensorimotor memory. All considerations of survival are thus brought to bear upon even the most minor decisions, such as what side of the street to walk on, or what color of clothing to wear in the woods during hunting season."
leads me to:
2. STIMULUS-RESPONSE
"The robot or organism with no record of experience must do only what it is pre-programmed to do: move towards food or energy; move away from pain or danger; and never learn from experience."
Does that mean that the hard-coded 'impulses' (you used survival here) are 'just there'? To me that seems to be what I would describe as either the genetic characteristic. Or the cosmological link between the spiritual 'I' and the physical 'I'.
You also stated:
"Anyone who thinks that there is something not quite right or dead wrong with the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind (cfTOM) might consider explaining it to other people for clarity, or web hosting their alternative xyzTOM."
Understand that you have worked on this theory for a period of time that far exceeds the amount of time I have been thinking of any real xyzTOM. When I have reached the amount of time that you have put into yours (or many others out there that have almost completed theories) then hopefully it will attract enough attention to get people asking me how it handles various aspects the human condition, like yours is doing with me. :)
I hope I did a little better on spelling and communication this time, I was on a pretty big high yesterday after reading http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=8395.
/Gonjin
PS ~
I was thinking these posts should perhaps be in the 'Mentifex Theory of Mind'. Is there a mod here to make that happen?
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 8/3/2003 11:59 | | | | | | | | | | Interesting point about the heart, gonjin:
The human heart begins to beat and pump blood through the embryo around day 22 of gestation. The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.
The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison.
'Fraid there's no such mod btw. Copy and paste manually, if you feel up to it. ;)
| | | Last edited by Rob Hoogers @ 8/3/2003 12:24:00 PM | | |
| | |
Gonjin |
| | | | | | posted 8/3/2003 14:18 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rob Hoogers wrote @ 8/3/2003 11:59:00 AM:
Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.
The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison.
'Fraid there's no such mod btw. Copy and paste manually, if you feel up to it. ;)
| |
LOL, you actually read that long thing? I figured the only one would be Arthur, and that was a shot in the dark. ;)
I wonder at what point the nervous system can begin to control the rate, and which initiates contact with the other. It'd be ironic if the brain actually learns about the heart because of that incessant pounding!
Pennywise,
Mind if I do the copying over to your Mantifex thread? This thread should be for all completed AI solutions.
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 8/4/2003 08:46 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gonjin wrote @ 8/3/2003 2:18:00 PM:
[1] LOL, you actually read that long thing?
[2] Pennywise,
Mind if I do the copying over to your Mantifex thread? This thread should be for all completed AI solutions.
| |
[1] Just browsed through it for the salient bits.
You'd be appalled by my reading speed these days. I don't know if it's the same as 'diagonal reading' that I've heard about, but it does the trick.
The heart does more than pump blood 'only'. There's oodles of hormones and other glandular excretions, that all have a specific 'halflife' before they degrade, sometimes minutes, sometimes less. I think the brain has a very good idea of getting those timely in place by controlling the flow rate, too. It's not just one chemical (they inter- and counteract) , so it would be comparable to setting the pace(s) for a whole orchestra.
[2] I think you mean Arthur. I don't think James would want to be too closely associated at this point in time.
And I definitely agree with the 'completed solutions' statement.
| | | Last edited by Rob Hoogers @ 8/4/2003 8:53:00 AM | | |
| | |
Nabarun Mondal |
| | | | | | posted 10/10/2003 04:48 | | | | | | | | | | It is a good idea, the Turing Test.
But, is it intellegent enough?
Let's propose another , which is theoritically imposssible by any (DUMB) program.
"A program debugging another pprogram".
The debugger is Intelligent.
( According to a theorem in Discrete math, no program can debug another, successfully in all cases!)
But, human can.
So, let's propose a humble proposition , that, any program is "intelligent" iff it is capable of debugging other.
:)
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 10/10/2003 06:27 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Nabarun Mondal wrote @ 10/10/2003 4:48:00 AM:
But, human can.
| |
Noburo, there is *no* bugfree program. (Another theorem).
So, human no can do, either.
| | |
| | |
Sam Fentress |
| | | | | | posted 10/10/2003 16:00 | | | | | | | | | | Indeed. Penrose keeps trying to prove that Humans are exempt from Godel's theorem, but keeps failing miserably...
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 10/11/2003 08:16 | | | | | | | | | | I think - but this is conjecture - that it could well be that this same impossibility to get that last fraction of that last percent as you want it, is the same leeway that's needed for the ability to change, and adapt. Maybe this is even the secret hide-out for what we term as 'free will', with its close cousins 'random error', and 'serendipity'.
| | |
| | |
Nabarun Mondal |
| | | | | | posted 10/13/2003 04:52 | | | | | | | | | | I did not know the theorem exists.
Now if it exists, then propose a program which simply prints a string , and then stops.
How one argue that the program is buggy, when it conforms strictly to it's description?
| | |
| | |
nonlocality
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 10/13/2003 07:14 | | | | | | | | | | All "non-computability" may come from nonlocality of wave function, what happens in one place depends instantenuously of what happens in other places. Was likely proved to be impossible to make an equation what describes it any other way and such equation doesn't describe nonlocal things completely. IMHO, that's all I know.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
