|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics
Part A - Artificial Intelligence and human-kind, in 2 sentences.
Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably exceeding humans in cognitive tasks, and some projections observe human level brain power in artificial machines/software by at least 2020 (Wikipedia exascale computing source). Artificial Intelligence is already solving many of human kind's problems. Part B - Crucial difference between Edward and Tegmark Edward Witten is quite the human being/physicist. Max Tegmark is also, quite the human/cosmologist. Both have phd physics degrees. The urgent difference? (1) Max presents consciousness as a mathematical problem... Although Max Tegmark is not an artificial intelligence pioneer nor is officially trained as an artificial intelligence researcher, Max is already contributing important work, helping to organize the theory of deep learning (A hot paradigm in Artificial Intelligence now). A sample of Max's AI work:https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225 Max describing consciousness as a mathematical problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM (2) Edward Witten believes we will never truly understand consciousness... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ https://futurism.com/human-level-ai-...han-you-think/ Part C - How components approached by Edward's genius applies in AI today Edward Witten's work concerns some deep stuff on manifolds. (Sample: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102) In artificial intelligence, models are observed to be doing some form of manifold representation, especially in the euclidean regime. (And are already demonstrated to be strong candidates for 'disentangling problems' of which many problem spaces occur) As an unofficial AI researcher myself, I am working on AI, as it relates to super-manifolds.(I recently invented something called 'thought curvature', involving yet another invention of mine called the 'supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning', built atop Yoshua Bengio's manifold work) So I happen to have a brief, concise description somewhere, where manifolds are shown to non-trivially relate to artificial intelligence (you can see also Deep Learning book by bengio, or Chris Olah's manifold explanation): Some months ago, I had personally contacted Witten, advising him that his genius could apply in AI. (No response though) Why does Edward Witten allow his belief (as shown in the video above) to block himself from possibly considerably contributing to artificial intelligence, one of human-kind's most profound tools, even despite contrasting evidence that manifolds apply in machine learning? ///
|
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,686
|
Isn't there already a thread on this stuff?
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,372
|
Why the huge fonts, bolding and colours?
|
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Understanding the readability of colored text by crowd-sourcing on the Web:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2009/HPL-2009-182.pdf |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Typo correction de-tangleable, de-tangled (in Spoiler):
Correction 1: unentangleable Correction 2: unentangled |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,372
|
|
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 788
|
![]() I find it hard to take anything you write seriously when this is the kind of thing you use to illustrate your arguments. It looks like it was scribbled by a 3 year old. It behooves you to illustrate your work with proper diagrams if you want your readers to engage with you. Putting a diagram like *that* makes it look like you're just not trying and don't care to communicate effectively with your readers. Inkscape (https://inkscape.org/en/) is free and will allow you to draw proper diagrams. Maybe try learning it and using it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,686
|
Pick one. They all make about the same amount of sense.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...archid=4078957 |
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,686
|
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,231
|
For some reason this type of formatting is required of this type of post. I don't know why, but it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius (often the poster themself, although apparently not in this case).
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,078
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
|
This is a good example of how the exotic colours and fonts detract from the content as that's what we've ended up talking about.
And the margins are busted again. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 788
|
Sufficient for what? It's an ugly amateurish mess of an image. I thought Ft1 was FTL so I thought at first it had something to do with faster than light travel. The bit in the middle just looks like some random squiggly lines.
I guarantee that lots of people aren't even going to attempt to make sense of such a mess of a diagram. Yet you consider it 'sufficient'? Note that all you've done with your weirdly formatted posts and badly drawn diagrams is help derail the thread into a discussion about how your posts are formatted. That shows you that they are not sufficient, because they're not achieving the goal of communicating to your audience. Unless, of course, it's your goal to open up a discussion about weirdly formatted internet posts. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
Lots of nonsense and then you shoot yourself in the foot
![]() A reason that scientists and mathematicians do not answer every email is that they have filters in place to weed out irrelevant emails, especially from physics and math cranks. Thus your email was probably either irrelevant to Edward Witten or suggested a contact from a physics and math crank. If it was anything like your OP the latter is probable. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
There is a manifold hypothesis that has theoretical and experimental support as you cited.
Neural Networks, Manifolds, and Topology
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
You posted some ignorant math word salad on academia.edu. Starts with the title ("Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis") and gets worse from there.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,060
|
I can psychically sense that this manifold destiny is doomed therefore I don't need to provide evidence for this intuitive conclusion.
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
We covered the ignorant math word salad of "Supermanifold Hypothesis (via Deep Learning)" in another thread.
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. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,686
|
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Why bother to comment, given that manifolds are indeed contained in the Deep Learning Book I presented? Perhaps you had initially commented the highlighted portion, without first reading the book, and because you didn't observe manifolds in the table of contents, you expressed the highlighted portion. Since manifolds are indeed found in the book, as I had expressed, why bother to express the underlined portion, or better yet, why bother to comment on it at all, (especially when it is clear that I had been valid, in presenting that manifolds..and other related data were in the book)? Does your capitalizing 'MACHINE LEARNING BASICS' signify something? Why don't you think a bit longer before posting? PART B What has your presentation above to do with the question posed in the original post? Could you care to attempt to approach the question posed? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
PART A Look, if you can finally provide scientific evidence as to why the standard math in (thought curvature) is supposedly invalid, do so. Otherwise what is the point of blathering on absent evidence? Prediction: RealityCheck shall blather on absent evidence. PART B What has your presentation above to do with the question posed in the original post? Could you care to attempt to approach the question posed? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Here are the contents of my email to Witten: ![]() Very simple, perhaps too simple? Edit: Looking back now, perhaps my profile gmail picture was non-desirable. PART B Anyway, it is not merely that Edward Witten fails to do what I suggest, but instead, that manifolds are empirically observed to apply in machine learning, and he doesn't select to approach that field, even despite the contrasting manifold AI based evidence. 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) AI is one of mankind's most profound tools. (2) AI is already performing nobel prize level tasks, very very efficiently. (3) AI may need only be mankind's last invention. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
(1) No where had I supposedly stated that "all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean". In fact, 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? (2) Anyway, as I had expressed then, they can be observed to possess some flat Riemannian metric, which entail locally euclidean description. At any cost, the evidence above already showed your comments to be false.
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Do that or blather on absent evidence. FOOTNOTE What has your presentation above to do with the question posed in the original post? Could you care to attempt to approach the question posed? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by faqin
And still yet, there is no other thread here, regarding Edward Witten, entailing Manifolds and Machine Learning. The unavoidable point is that, there is empirical evidence in machine learning, that manifolds apply. (as evidenced in the original post). RealityCheck's posts (invalid albeit) about my personal work on manifolds/AI don't change the above fact. PART B Did you notice that RealityCheck avoided the query in the original post, merely executing cross post information? (where he had long been shown to be invalid, based on publicly available data) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,737
|
Betteridge's law of headlines is one name for an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better...w_of_headlines |
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha! Eqinsu Ocha! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
![]()
Inanely formatted, insulting post not worthy of quoting. Without your irrelevant highlighting of my post:
I pointed out that your link was ignorant about the book you cited and stopped people wasting their time searching the book for the appropriate page. Since you want it: 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten. Edward Witten is not an AI researcher ![]() Edward Witten is probably ignoring your email as one from the many Internet cranks that he receives. An error about what Edward Witten's opinion. What you quote is the title of Reaching Singularity: Physicist Asserts We Will Never Truly Understand Consciousness written by an editor or reporter.
Quote:
![]() |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
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). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
ProgrammingGodJordan]: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish
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) ... |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,472
|
![]()
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.
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
|
I think that the ISF should create another forum award, named in honor of the op:
The PGJ Gobbledygook Medal. I have yet to encounter this level of impenetrable technobabble in any other venue. There's a very good reason why Witten did not respond to PGJ's email. |
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Originally Posted by BStrong
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
|
Your response above is demonstrably false; that manifolds are indeed contained in the Deep Learning Book I presented, is unavoidable.
No where had I mentioned that Edward Witten was an officially trained artificial intelligence researcher. ...but neither is Max Tegmark, another physicist. In fact, I underlined that Tegmark was not officially trained AI researcher, but Tegmark presents consciousness as a mathematical problem, and has already contributed important work in machine learning, while Witten unavoidably presented his belief regarding consciousness as a likely never solvable phenomenon:
Originally Posted by OriginalPost
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
|
Quote:
AI re-created what had already been done. The little gizmo didn't stay up all night working on it's own volition. |
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|