Comments on: Creationism To Be Taught In UK Sciences Classes - Unbelievable http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/ Simon Brocklehurst's Technology Blog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:57:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: simon http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-937 simon Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:37:42 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-937 It you can't design a test/make a prediction then it would indeed be a non-falsifiable theory. There is a good argument to say that, until current theories of gravity progress to the point where predictions are made and experiments can be done to test those predictions, these theories are no more "scientific" than saying "gravity is caused by invisible bunny rabbits running around looking for invisible carrots". It you can’t design a test/make a prediction then it would indeed be a non-falsifiable theory. There is a good argument to say that, until current theories of gravity progress to the point where predictions are made and experiments can be done to test those predictions, these theories are no more “scientific” than saying “gravity is caused by invisible bunny rabbits running around looking for invisible carrots”.

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-931 Asam Bashir Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:01:58 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-931 We might never be able to capture or measure a graviton, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925431.200.html - I'm not sure if that would make it a non falsifiable theory. This looks spooky too, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhFnIw09x4&search=qrio We might never be able to capture or measure a graviton, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925431.200.html - I’m not sure if that would make it a non falsifiable theory.

This looks spooky too, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhFnIw09×4&search=qrio

]]> By: simon http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-929 simon Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:46:50 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-929 I take your point about DNA and biological systems. And self-evolving code is commonly used today (see e.g. genetic algorithms). Today, these are mosly quite trivial pieces of software, and they rarely (if ever) solve problems that couldn't solved by other algorithms. The challenge with developing self-evolving computer systems that could evolve to something approaching the complexity of interacting humans, would be to provide an "evironment" for the code, whereby the evolutionary pressures on the system could produce a sensible direction. Now, in theory, you could say that, in a "future" with massive computer power, posthumans could have built a self-evolving computer system, and that we're the product of the system. But surely, such theories are not falsifiable (in the Karl Popper sense); and it's difficult (impossible) to make scientific advances if theories aren't falsifiable. You might as well say we're all figments of George W Bush's imagination - you can't prove that we're not; in the same way you can't prove that we're not part of a posthuman computer simulation. As for why the grand unifying theory is elusive, I would ask why you think it *shouldn't* be elusive? The universe is complex. Progress towards greater understanding of complex areas is made by people coming up with falsifiable (but incorrect) theories. I take your point about DNA and biological systems. And self-evolving code is commonly used today (see e.g. genetic algorithms). Today, these are mosly quite trivial pieces of software, and they rarely (if ever) solve problems that couldn’t solved by other algorithms.

The challenge with developing self-evolving computer systems that could evolve to something approaching the complexity of interacting humans, would be to provide an “evironment” for the code, whereby the evolutionary pressures on the system could produce a sensible direction.

Now, in theory, you could say that, in a “future” with massive computer power, posthumans could have built a self-evolving computer system, and that we’re the product of the system. But surely, such theories are not falsifiable (in the Karl Popper sense); and it’s difficult (impossible) to make scientific advances if theories aren’t falsifiable. You might as well say we’re all figments of George W Bush’s imagination - you can’t prove that we’re not; in the same way you can’t prove that we’re not part of a posthuman computer simulation.

As for why the grand unifying theory is elusive, I would ask why you think it *shouldn’t* be elusive? The universe is complex. Progress towards greater understanding of complex areas is made by people coming up with falsifiable (but incorrect) theories.

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-928 Asam Bashir Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:21:40 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-928 Do you think we could one day develop simple semi intelligent programs that put in a certain environment and given a copy mechanism could evolve in to better programs? True, to write an AI program from scratch would be impossible for human coders, but if if the code evolves itself? in computer time limited only by procssor availability and not time. Biology can be viewed as a computer program with the code as DNA, its not a silicon computer of course, but its a kind of computation right? Its not throwing everything we know from empirical evidence away, its just looking at it from a slight different stance. We don't have a grand unified theory to be able to say for certain if speed of light can be reached, we don't really understand anything really to rule some possibilities out. Why is the grand unifying theory so elusive? Do you think we could one day develop simple semi intelligent programs that put in a certain environment and given a copy mechanism could evolve in to better programs? True, to write an AI program from scratch would be impossible for human coders, but if if the code evolves itself? in computer time limited only by procssor availability and not time. Biology can be viewed as a computer program with the code as DNA, its not a silicon computer of course, but its a kind of computation right? Its not throwing everything we know from empirical evidence away, its just looking at it from a slight different stance.

We don’t have a grand unified theory to be able to say for certain if speed of light can be reached, we don’t really understand anything really to rule some possibilities out. Why is the grand unifying theory so elusive?

]]> By: simon http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-927 simon Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:29:29 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-927 OK - I just read the Simulation Argument paper. I can't believe people can get away with stuff like this. The problem with this type of work is that people construct quite sophisticated arguments based on simple assertions that are almost certainly wrong. In this case, the assertion is - "In the future, computers will be so powerful that it will be possible to simulate a hundred billion humans interacting with each other". This assertion is, IMHO, badly flawed. The argument ignores the difficulty in writing the *software* for this simulation. Developing more powerful computers is a trivial undertaking compared with writing such complex software. The truth is that it's likely that writing the simulation software will always be impossible. And thus the whole "we're living in a computer simulation" argument falls apart. People often fall into this sort of trap. In the late 1990s, I recall having conversations with some IBM people and also some of the academics who they were collaborating with, when they were starting their BlueGene project. They were insistent they were going to solve the protein folding problem, with the vast computer power they were putting in place. The people on this project simply ignored the fact that the simulation software they were using wouldn't (obviously, in my opinion) be up to the job of simulating protein folding; and they could provide me with no convincing arguments as to why they would succeed on any reasonable timescale As far as I know, IBM has still not yet solved the protein folding problem. What they have found, as the years have gone by, is that as well as more computer power, they need more sophisticated software. In other words, the real problem is the software, not the hardware. It's easy to build arguments on top of impossible/exceptionally unlikely hypotheses that "simply" require huge leaps in technology. Here's another one. The universe is so large that there must exist super-intelligent life with super-advanced technology that enables them to travel at faster than the speed of light or otherwise traverse the universe on short-timescales. It follows that the Earth has been visited by aliens and they are walking among us. If you accept the underlying assertion, then of couse there must be aliens walking among us. Of course, the problem with the argument is that there's no reason to believe that it's *possible* to build space vehicles that can travel anywhere in the Universe on short-timescales. OK - I just read the Simulation Argument paper. I can’t believe people can get away with stuff like this. The problem with this type of work is that people construct quite sophisticated arguments based on simple assertions that are almost certainly wrong. In this case, the assertion is - “In the future, computers will be so powerful that it will be possible to simulate a hundred billion humans interacting with each other”.

This assertion is, IMHO, badly flawed. The argument ignores the difficulty in writing the *software* for this simulation. Developing more powerful computers is a trivial undertaking compared with writing such complex software. The truth is that it’s likely that writing the simulation software will always be impossible. And thus the whole “we’re living in a computer simulation” argument falls apart.

People often fall into this sort of trap. In the late 1990s, I recall having conversations with some IBM people and also some of the academics who they were collaborating with, when they were starting their BlueGene project. They were insistent they were going to solve the protein folding problem, with the vast computer power they were putting in place. The people on this project simply ignored the fact that the simulation software they were using wouldn’t (obviously, in my opinion) be up to the job of simulating protein folding; and they could provide me with no convincing arguments as to why they would succeed on any reasonable timescale As far as I know, IBM has still not yet solved the protein folding problem. What they have found, as the years have gone by, is that as well as more computer power, they need more sophisticated software. In other words, the real problem is the software, not the hardware.

It’s easy to build arguments on top of impossible/exceptionally unlikely hypotheses that “simply” require huge leaps in technology. Here’s another one. The universe is so large that there must exist super-intelligent life with super-advanced technology that enables them to travel at faster than the speed of light or otherwise traverse the universe on short-timescales. It follows that the Earth has been visited by aliens and they are walking among us.

If you accept the underlying assertion, then of couse there must be aliens walking among us. Of course, the problem with the argument is that there’s no reason to believe that it’s *possible* to build space vehicles that can travel anywhere in the Universe on short-timescales.

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-926 Asam Bashir Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:21:10 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-926 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400040922 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400040922

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-925 Asam Bashir Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:02:57 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-925 They're ideas and as such lots of healthy debate, they provide better visions of the future then the current politicians, http://www.simulation-argument.com/ Sometimes we need to step back and think a little different, before stepping ahead, take a snap shot from the grand scale and just check it out.... They’re ideas and as such lots of healthy debate, they provide better visions of the future then the current politicians,

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Sometimes we need to step back and think a little different, before stepping ahead, take a snap shot from the grand scale and just check it out….

]]> By: simon http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-919 simon Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:01:48 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-919 Where on the FHI web-site does it talk about "posthumans" or "living in a computer simulation"? Where is the evidence that people are turning "more and more" to Electric Universe concepts? Where on the FHI web-site does it talk about “posthumans” or “living in a computer simulation”? Where is the evidence that people are turning “more and more” to Electric Universe concepts?

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-917 Asam Bashir Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:38:26 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-917 BTW, if you not noticed, the big bang is in a mess these days, no proof for quantum cosmology and people turning more and more to Electric universe concepts. When you star looking at this and view the universe as a hug computation, things start looking even wierder. See Oxford preparing for the future, 1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ I wrote some stuff like that a few years ago, but they called me a nutter back then.... BTW, if you not noticed, the big bang is in a mess these days, no proof for quantum cosmology and people turning more and more to Electric universe concepts. When you star looking at this and view the universe as a hug computation, things start looking even wierder.

See Oxford preparing for the future,

1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/

I wrote some stuff like that a few years ago, but they called me a nutter back then….

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2006/03/10/creationism-to-be-taught-in-uk-sciences-classes-unbelievable/#comment-902 Asam Bashir Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:21:16 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/?p=132#comment-902 You're making the assumption that there is only one Universe, Biocosm predicts there may be many multi-verses, and this isn't too far from what M-theory is saying right? This particular universe lead to us, we've so far managed to put together this web of information, if intelligence is emergent behaviour then its not too far in the future that the Internet might wake up one day and say, I AM. Once it does that then it would help its own developement. Ignoring specific predications, the most important thing Kurzwell says to remember is that the future is exponential. That's the mistake you're making now assuming we need a billion years for a super intelligent being to evolve, you're viewing the future as linear. You’re making the assumption that there is only one Universe, Biocosm predicts there may be many multi-verses, and this isn’t too far from what M-theory is saying right? This particular universe lead to us, we’ve so far managed to put together this web of information, if intelligence is emergent behaviour then its not too far in the future that the Internet might wake up one day and say, I AM. Once it does that then it would help its own developement. Ignoring specific predications, the most important thing Kurzwell says to remember is that the future is exponential. That’s the mistake you’re making now assuming we need a billion years for a super intelligent being to evolve, you’re viewing the future as linear.

]]>