3 ms·
As for the first answer: we all have to learn to deal with roundoff error. That's not by principle an obstacle. The other answer contains an implicit assumptio
by yungchin 16y ago
As for the first answer: we all have to learn to deal with roundoff error. That's not by principle an obstacle.
The other answer contains an implicit assumption that's not obviously correct: you suggest that complexity only arises when you enumerate every possible dimension of phase space. But physical simulations have been very successful at reproducing complex behaviour from simple rules, without taking into account every particle's state vector.
Finally, did you really try to equate my statement to the statement that Windows could be written in three days? ...
- mechanical_fish 16y agoNo, I'm poking fun at Kurzweil's 2020 deadline, not at you. You appear to have been wise enough not to specify a deadline... As for this statement: physical simulations have been very successful at reproducing complex behaviour from simple rules Absolutely, but it doesn't follow that every complex behavior can be reproduced from simple rules. To overgeneralize from success in one field is the occupational illness of futurists. It's certainly a key problem for Singularitarians, who tend to get so enthusiastic about Moore's Law that they forget that most of the world has nothing to do with microelectronics.
- yungchin 16y agoHaha, well I guess the fact that for a moment I felt that was condescending mostly says a lot about me ;)
- pjscott 16y agoBiological systems are approximate. I would assume that they can deal with a little rounding error.
- jacquesm 16y agoAt the lowest level biology is physics. And physical systems are not approximate, they are exactly what they are, and a small round-off error can give a huge difference in the specific outcome, even if on a macroscopic level that outcome might be indistinguishable from the 'real' outcome. So the real question then becomes does biology tolerate working on an approximation of the underlying physics and does that simulated biology still have the ability to exhibit intelligence. I think the first is a maybe, the second a yes but I couldn't give you any reasons why other than that it might be that our biology needs 'its' physics to operate and that probably anything Turing complete has the potential to exhibit intelligence, regardless of whether or not we find a way to achieve that.