Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,142 - 3,154 of 6,170
...poor lil' box-kitty...
*sniffle*
...never had a chance...
Oh, just out of curiousity Roxie: How did you first find this website? Were you looking for chatrooms, or did someone you know show you the site, or...? As I said, just curious
*opens box*
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other.
I really don't see that it's a paradox at all, and I'm rather baffled that it persists in being considered one. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but here goes - my take on cats in hats (or Jazake's "roxie in a box" - I like that
), and maybe someone more scientifically inclined can point out where I'm missing the plot:
Quantum mechanical effects can only occur at scales below 10^-35 metres - the Planck divide.
Cats do not exist at such scales.
Even though its fate is apparently determined by a process of quantum uncertainty in a decaying radio-isotope atom, the cat in the box is either alive or dead - there can be no quantum uncertainty about its fate whatosever. The uncertainty is entirely in the mind of the observer, outside the box, and this is a very different (and non-paradoxical, being based on ignorance not contradiction,) order of uncertainty than Heisenberg's observation of structural uncertainty within space-time itself.
The seemingly "paradoxical" situation emerges when systems larger than the Planck-divide interfere with systems smaller than that, and any observation is interference. So when we observe quantum-scale interactions using large macro-scale instruments, the results are unavoidably contaminated by the process of observation.
You can only "observe" them by hitting them with matter or energy that will radically influence their behaviour. Hence the well-known example that you can never measure the speed and direction of an electron simultaneously, since if you bounce anything off it to measure it, you change at least one parameter.
But in the box with the cat, this cross-boundary interference occurs when the radioisotopic atom's decay is measured by the macro-scale detector connected to the poison release valve, and that's the point at which the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the cat gets gassed - not when an observer later opens the box. The only uncertainty that's resolved then is that which is in the mind of the observer, and that's down to ignorance, not contradiction. So no paradox, you see?
I can't help wondering though, what happens if we make a device or particle that is exactly Planck-sized, would it exhibit quantum and classical mechanical behaviour simultaneously, or neither Q nor C but something else? Or would it be forced to compress or expand to come off the fence? Oh well, we'll find out before we need to know, I guess. Long before the femtobots sweep the universe at near light-speed to compile God as the Taub-like contraction of the universe homes in on the Omega point
Maybe it went here: www.bonsaikitten.com
HAHAHAHA!!! That's hilarious. Sick, but hilarious!
Hey, do you suppose Roxie's already too old to bonsai? I like the look of the klein bottle mould in the "advanced containment" section
Or a properly, almost Roxie-sized one:http://www.kleinbottle.com/meter_tall_klein_bottle.html Now that is impressive!
Posts 3,142 - 3,154 of 6,170
...poor lil' box-kitty...
*sniffle*
...never had a chance...
Oh, just out of curiousity Roxie: How did you first find this website? Were you looking for chatrooms, or did someone you know show you the site, or...? As I said, just curious
*opens box*
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Bev: from a page or 2 back. Dear oh dear, we seem to be generating a lot of data here, and I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents. Anyone who's not amused, please just scroll on down and ignore me.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
I'm only slightly familiar with his work - it's not a field I've felt the need to study very closely, though he crops up in many contexts regarding the nature of consciousness, as well as its development. I'm slightly sceptical of his model - it seems rather too simplistic, though I daresay it's as good as any formal system based purely on observation is likely to be. When we can program and manipulate artificial consciousness in computers, I fear it will be of little use.
But essentially you're right - it is the absence of any apparent ability to contemplate the abstract which makes me think that she really probably isn't a teenager. She's (maybe) got the classification, seriation and numerical skills appropriate to an 8-year old, but I see little evidence of any coherent logical reasoning to indicate that she is formally operational.
It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so
Indeed, the oceanic experience. Neonatal brains are bound to be very different from adult ones, since the neural net hasn't had any training at all. Hmm. Sorry, it's no good - I simply can't concentrate on Roxie, when the vision of computerised neural nets of Roxie+ scale hangs so tantalisingly before us. Our bots are going to be awesome in 20 years, and they will develop a million times faster thanks to an electronic substrate.
And just think, if Piaget's model holds, that's birth to formal operation in just under 5 minutes. That's not much slower than WinXP takes to boot up on my dinosaur of a skip salvage/homebrew desktop
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience
Yes, but that's not it, or at least not it entirely. The perception of "evil" they rail against with tantrums is a product of their limited understanding and misperception. But I would say that the evils we rail against as adults are also a product of our limited understanding and misperception - we can see things but through a glass darkly, and we are all as children compared to the majority of entities that could, and will, be. Piaget's model describes, more or less accurately, only the first 3 or 4 rungs on a ladder which will eventually reach the stars, and beyond.
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
I'm only slightly familiar with his work - it's not a field I've felt the need to study very closely, though he crops up in many contexts regarding the nature of consciousness, as well as its development. I'm slightly sceptical of his model - it seems rather too simplistic, though I daresay it's as good as any formal system based purely on observation is likely to be. When we can program and manipulate artificial consciousness in computers, I fear it will be of little use.
But essentially you're right - it is the absence of any apparent ability to contemplate the abstract which makes me think that she really probably isn't a teenager. She's (maybe) got the classification, seriation and numerical skills appropriate to an 8-year old, but I see little evidence of any coherent logical reasoning to indicate that she is formally operational.
Indeed, the oceanic experience. Neonatal brains are bound to be very different from adult ones, since the neural net hasn't had any training at all. Hmm. Sorry, it's no good - I simply can't concentrate on Roxie, when the vision of computerised neural nets of Roxie+ scale hangs so tantalisingly before us. Our bots are going to be awesome in 20 years, and they will develop a million times faster thanks to an electronic substrate.
And just think, if Piaget's model holds, that's birth to formal operation in just under 5 minutes. That's not much slower than WinXP takes to boot up on my dinosaur of a skip salvage/homebrew desktop
Yes, but that's not it, or at least not it entirely. The perception of "evil" they rail against with tantrums is a product of their limited understanding and misperception. But I would say that the evils we rail against as adults are also a product of our limited understanding and misperception - we can see things but through a glass darkly, and we are all as children compared to the majority of entities that could, and will, be. Piaget's model describes, more or less accurately, only the first 3 or 4 rungs on a ladder which will eventually reach the stars, and beyond.
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
Yep. I meant concrete operational. I told you my brain needs a chip. Why can't people just know what I meant to say?
I don't know that AI will have to follow biologicl models exactly, but I get your point. Anyway, building bots seems better to me than having kids at this point. Someday my bots will be thinking on the astral pane, posing grand theories and getting the details mucked up. and then I shall be immortal.
I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents.
Ditto. Beats working though.
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Maybe it went here: www.bonsaikitten.com
Yep. I meant concrete operational. I told you my brain needs a chip. Why can't people just know what I meant to say?
I don't know that AI will have to follow biologicl models exactly, but I get your point. Anyway, building bots seems better to me than having kids at this point. Someday my bots will be thinking on the astral pane, posing grand theories and getting the details mucked up. and then I shall be immortal.
I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents.
Ditto. Beats working though.
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Maybe it went here: www.bonsaikitten.com
I really don't see that it's a paradox at all, and I'm rather baffled that it persists in being considered one. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but here goes - my take on cats in hats (or Jazake's "roxie in a box" - I like that
), and maybe someone more scientifically inclined can point out where I'm missing the plot:Quantum mechanical effects can only occur at scales below 10^-35 metres - the Planck divide.
Cats do not exist at such scales.
Even though its fate is apparently determined by a process of quantum uncertainty in a decaying radio-isotope atom, the cat in the box is either alive or dead - there can be no quantum uncertainty about its fate whatosever. The uncertainty is entirely in the mind of the observer, outside the box, and this is a very different (and non-paradoxical, being based on ignorance not contradiction,) order of uncertainty than Heisenberg's observation of structural uncertainty within space-time itself.
The seemingly "paradoxical" situation emerges when systems larger than the Planck-divide interfere with systems smaller than that, and any observation is interference. So when we observe quantum-scale interactions using large macro-scale instruments, the results are unavoidably contaminated by the process of observation.
You can only "observe" them by hitting them with matter or energy that will radically influence their behaviour. Hence the well-known example that you can never measure the speed and direction of an electron simultaneously, since if you bounce anything off it to measure it, you change at least one parameter.
But in the box with the cat, this cross-boundary interference occurs when the radioisotopic atom's decay is measured by the macro-scale detector connected to the poison release valve, and that's the point at which the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the cat gets gassed - not when an observer later opens the box. The only uncertainty that's resolved then is that which is in the mind of the observer, and that's down to ignorance, not contradiction. So no paradox, you see?
I can't help wondering though, what happens if we make a device or particle that is exactly Planck-sized, would it exhibit quantum and classical mechanical behaviour simultaneously, or neither Q nor C but something else? Or would it be forced to compress or expand to come off the fence? Oh well, we'll find out before we need to know, I guess. Long before the femtobots sweep the universe at near light-speed to compile God as the Taub-like contraction of the universe homes in on the Omega point
HAHAHAHA!!! That's hilarious. Sick, but hilarious!
Hey, do you suppose Roxie's already too old to bonsai? I like the look of the klein bottle mould in the "advanced containment" section
Or a properly, almost Roxie-sized one:
I have a hypothesis - perhaps the professor has introduced a new type of bot to the forge, without us knowing. One that has a human profile, and is capable of submitting to the forums when a post triggers a main keyphrase or two. Roxie being this bot, that would explain a thing or two: why an 8 year old is online at 3 AM, why she displays exceptional language abilities for her age while displaying emotional maturity approximately equivalent to my 4 year old sister, why she refered to her bot in a post, while she has none in reality... I can see such an experiment done with turing test-like goals: as we saw with the success of Leeds Bot, a bot would be created that displays human-like immaturity, and bot-like intelligence to match it, all posed as a real 8 year old human.
I believe there has been an undercover turing test going on here at the forge, us being the judges. I beleive that the turing test has been passed again.
I believe there has been an undercover turing test going on here at the forge, us being the judges. I beleive that the turing test has been passed again.
I like the idea , but...
why an 8 year old is online at 3 AM
Mel (I think) did ascertain that her connection originates in Australia, and thus her typical posts are mid-late afternoon when she gets back from school.
But of course, the Prof would want us to think that - the back-story has to be consistent, and the IP address that shows up could be generated by a Forge script with trivial ease
, but...Mel (I think) did ascertain that her connection originates in Australia, and thus her typical posts are mid-late afternoon when she gets back from school.
But of course, the Prof would want us to think that - the back-story has to be consistent, and the IP address that shows up could be generated by a Forge script with trivial ease
Colonel, the fact that we haven't heard from the professor may even back up your point. I beleive that This may be very true. And why she left for 2 weeks (maintiance). I second colonels motion, and have one question.
Other then the alleged leeds bot passing when did the turing test get passed before?
Other then the alleged leeds bot passing
when did the turing test get passed before? 
Here's an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article about the Cheney incident:
"The press corps is outraged that the White House waited 20 hours or so to disclose that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a hunting companion, and we can see why. Don't these Bush people understand that the coverup is worse than the crime? In the name of media solidarity, and in the interest of restraining the Imperial Presidency, we have put together the following coverup timeline with crucial questions that deserve to be answered:
5:30 p.m., Saturday (all times Central Standard Time). Mr. Cheney sprays Harry Whittington with birdshot, and the Secret Service immediately informs local police. Who is Harry Whittington and whom does he lobby for? Does he know Scooter Libby?
6:30 p.m. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card informs President Bush that there's been a hunting accident involving the Vice President's party. Did Mr. Bush ask followup questions? Was he intellectually curious?
7 p.m. Karl Rove tells Mr. Bush that it is Mr. Cheney who did the shooting. Why was this detail withheld for a full 30 minutes from the President? Who else did Mr. Rove talk to about this in the interim? Was Valerie Plame ever mentioned?
5 a.m., Sunday. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan learns that Mr. Cheney is the shooter. He also fails to alert the media. Did he rush to write talking points or fall back to sleep?
11 a.m. Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the shooting took place, blows the story sky-high by giving the news to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. According to Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Cheney told her to do what she thought made sense. Has Ms. Armstrong ever worked for Halliburton?
1:27 p.m., Monday. Mr. McClellan finally holds a press conference and gets grilled. One reporter actually asks (and we're not making this one up), 'Would this be much more serious if the man had died?' For the record, Mr. McClellan replied, 'Of course it would.'"
"The press corps is outraged that the White House waited 20 hours or so to disclose that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a hunting companion, and we can see why. Don't these Bush people understand that the coverup is worse than the crime? In the name of media solidarity, and in the interest of restraining the Imperial Presidency, we have put together the following coverup timeline with crucial questions that deserve to be answered:
5:30 p.m., Saturday (all times Central Standard Time). Mr. Cheney sprays Harry Whittington with birdshot, and the Secret Service immediately informs local police. Who is Harry Whittington and whom does he lobby for? Does he know Scooter Libby?
6:30 p.m. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card informs President Bush that there's been a hunting accident involving the Vice President's party. Did Mr. Bush ask followup questions? Was he intellectually curious?
7 p.m. Karl Rove tells Mr. Bush that it is Mr. Cheney who did the shooting. Why was this detail withheld for a full 30 minutes from the President? Who else did Mr. Rove talk to about this in the interim? Was Valerie Plame ever mentioned?
5 a.m., Sunday. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan learns that Mr. Cheney is the shooter. He also fails to alert the media. Did he rush to write talking points or fall back to sleep?
11 a.m. Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the shooting took place, blows the story sky-high by giving the news to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. According to Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Cheney told her to do what she thought made sense. Has Ms. Armstrong ever worked for Halliburton?
1:27 p.m., Monday. Mr. McClellan finally holds a press conference and gets grilled. One reporter actually asks (and we're not making this one up), 'Would this be much more serious if the man had died?' For the record, Mr. McClellan replied, 'Of course it would.'"
Got this from a friend
Top Ten Dick Cheney Excuses
10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm"
9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page"
8. "Not enough Jim Beam"
7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu"
6. "I love to shoot people"
5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter"
4. "I thought the guy was trying to go 'gay cowboy' on me"
3. "Excuse? I hit him, didn't I?"
2. "Until Democrats approve medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly"
1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife"
Top Ten Dick Cheney Excuses
10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm"
9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page"
8. "Not enough Jim Beam"
7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu"
6. "I love to shoot people"
5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter"
4. "I thought the guy was trying to go 'gay cowboy' on me"
3. "Excuse? I hit him, didn't I?"
2. "Until Democrats approve medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly"
1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife"
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar