This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
A Psychic Computer
Predictions already happen on a small scale - we as humans make predictions every day and need to in order to function, for example, predicting what will happen to the water in a jug when pouring the water into a glass.
A computer, however, has the potential to store a lot of data about it's environment and predict multiple outcomes - possibly more efficiently than any human can.
There are limits, though.
A computer can only predict up until a relatively short amount of time. The amount of time depends on how much of reality is attempted to be covered by the computer in it's simulation.
If something in reality that isn't covered by the computer's simulation effects something in reality that is being covered by the computer, the accuracy of the simulation drops dramatically. To use a metaphor - the dart can still hit the bull's eye - but the chances of it doing so are reduced.
There are in existence computers that can literally read the human mind - although only parts of it, and not in real-time. If a computer can do this now, I believe another computer can attempt to predict a human's decisions that effect the computer's simulation of the future.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
The algorithm for predicting the future on such a large scale supposedly only exists in fiction, but what's stopping the algorithm from becoming reality?
griffin tucker 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.html - attitude of decisions
http://www.ted.com/talks/laurie_santos.html - predicting mistakes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html - making better mistakes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jamil_abu_wardeh_bringing_comedy_to_the_axis_of_evil.html - fix mistakes by finding common ground (with humour!)
http://www.ted.com/talks/maz_jobrani_make_jokes_not_bombs.html - fix mistakes by connecting people (with humour!)
above ted talks sourced from Matthew Trost's TED blog on irrational choices.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html - misunderstanding exponential growth
Julian Blanco 30+
Interesting point (though the word psychic seems to be there to create some controversy).
So what you are basically saying is that if we had a unified physics theory and where able to load that into a computer, start with the first known second of the big bang, then the computer should be able to predict our current universe, life on earth and my breakfast for tomorrow.
I wonder if chance is a factor that goes beyond this and would deviate the experiment or if it does not exist when you do have all laws clear and in place…
Regards!
JB
griffin tucker 10+
the hypothetical computer doesn't need to start from the big bang to be able to predict the future - but dictations of the past can be created by the same computer and work backwards towards the big bang. the dictations of the past help predict the future, and if i'm not mistaken, vice-versa too.
chance indicates that the universe is not deterministic. many scientists believe the universe is not deterministic, but some do including Albert Einstein. even if it isn't, this theory indicates that the universe will eventually be partially deterministic.
what i mean by partially deterministic is that the hypothetical computer doesn't have to be 100% accurate in the predictions, but if comparing results to reality it may turn out that it is by fluke. this probably wouldn't happen with every prediction of a specific area.
the larger the area to predict, the less into the future the computer can see.
the smaller the area to predict, the more into the future the computer can see.
once the computer gets to a state of knowing an extremely large area, the amount of time into the future it can see actually increases instead of decreasing.
Julian Blanco 30+
I used the Big Bang because it is a more simple scenario, if you want to track every atom to its current position and shape (an absolute prediction).
Your version has more chances of failing because the input needs to come from reality (instead of a model) and present reality is very complex and has huge amounts of data to be gathered.
I understand that you are being more practical than me, what kind of prediction are you expecting? Population growth in China for the next 50 years? Will my relationship last? Etc?
One of the brain functions is to make predictions about the future, you can imagine yourself throwing a rock at a prey and the outcome of that, with more “experience” (historical data) your prediction gets better and better. I understand this is the kind of model you refer to. It is currently used for military porpoises as an example. The interesting question for me there is how do you get a good feedback loop, you forecast x scenario, you get y scenario, you need to imput that on the system and it needs to use that new result to change the next prediction, how do you do that?
Regards!
JB
griffin tucker 10+
there are actually multiple predictions that the computer makes. every time the algorithm detects a probability of a certain percentage of accuracy for a particular event being too low, it will predict more of the possible outcomes as a result of that event.
as time passes in real-time, more possible outcomes are being developed, and also less outcomes that become extremely unlikely to happen are taken out of the possible simulation of reality. the extremely unlikely predictions are not useless, though.
parts of an extremely unlikely prediction may contain parts of a useful prediction, effectively recycling some of the extremely unlikely prediction. changing minor elements in an extremely unlikely prediction to fit a likely one can be much more efficient than starting from scratch.
it's a bit like checking to see if an equation is correct by working backwards from the predicted/dictated answer - and using other methods to reinforce the answer, which can actually be more efficient.
i'd imagine the data would be stored in a table of predictions where each element could effect another element in a completely different part of the table.
the computer starts from one point in time and spreads forwards and backwards as time passes in real-time - so predictions aren't the only thing that could be a benefit, but in fact more accurate dictations of the past.
i'd be more concerned about India's population growth than China's over the next 50 years. personally, my main expectation/concern is to see how far our civilisation survives into the future. i'd like to know. whether or not i would like to know after i know - or if/should anyone for that matter - is a matter of philosophy and morality.
Faja Anser
griffin tucker 10+
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
I'm sure we could program a computer that could do that too.
Now, what happens between now and when we die ... well, that's a little harder.
What would you want to know? Why?
---
I suspect "the computer" that can "predict" the future has already been invented. I'd call it "the universe." Can a machine, made from carbon, or silicon, match the computational power of THAT super computer? Nah, I don't think so. There'd be no room for us to put it anywhere.
griffin tucker 10+
notice he said "as certain" - not "is certain."
"We are all going to die." - what if technology and/or cell manipulation enables life extension to the point of something close to immortality? http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hint_of_longer_lives.html
as for taxes - the future of a capitalist society is currently being debated between many, many protesters and those in power.
i may be missing the point, though. back to the topic...
"And I'm not even psychic." - i disagree. if you can purposefully pour a glass of water, i think you are psychic. everyone is. how far into the future the possible predictions go is a different story, but relevant.
what would i like to know of the future? i think what has been or will be on all of our minds at some stage of our lives in terms of instinctual self-preservation - will humankind survive?
i liken the universal computer to a quote by Carl Sagan - "We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
Thomas Jones 100+
And I would make a distinction between being psychic and being able to make reasonable predictions.
QUOTE: " ... will humankind survive?"
Not indefinitely. This is, of course, only a concern if we happen to be human ... although it does not concern me all that much.
At one point, about 250 million years ago, approximately 95% of ALL LIFE became extinct. That worked out okay. I mean, we're here. Who knows what might evolve the next time around? If anything.
griffin tucker 10+
the scale itself and the idea of immortality are highly speculative i must admit - but when involving infinite a lot of things are.
Thomas Jones 100+
Might we survive a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time?
Sure.
Forever? Nope.
Does this concern you? You seem to want us to live "forever." Is that correct?
griffin tucker 10+
the mathematics of approaching infinite in regards to time at some stage (not as yet) may mean that it is actually impossible for us as a civilisation to be completely wiped out.
when i'm talking about us as a civilisation becoming immortal, i do hope we become immortal.
i call it my instinctual nature of self-preservation thinking on a species/civilisation scale.
i do actually have other priorities, but it's just an idea. not everyone wants/believes what i do, and that's fine with me.
Thomas Jones 100+
While I appreciate your sentiment, I do not agree with you. You may be "concerned" but when our civilization ceases to exist, it will not actually concern you because you will not be here.
QUOTE: "the mathematics of approaching infinite in regards to time at some stage (not as yet) may mean that it is actually impossible for us as a civilisation to be completely wiped out."
Yes, well I am not so sure nature studies math ... and there is nothing in nature (besides our imagination) that indicates we will be around for very long at all. But even if we are, it still will not concern you (or me) because we will be gone soon enough.
QUOTE: "when i'm talking about us as a civilisation becoming immortal, i do hope we become immortal."
By definition, that which is temporary cannot be be immortal.
If there is something that we can say is immortal, it would already have the attributes necessary for immortality. Are you aware of any such thing? (Not: Can you imagine such a thing?)
griffin tucker 10+
if i adopt the attitude that i do not care what happens to those i care about because i won't be here, then there's not much point in writing a will. as the next generation passes, this still applies. even in much further generations it still applies, but where do you draw the line for how far into the future this applies? is there a line? i believe not, but this is my belief.
in the context of being able to know the future, depending on how far this hypothetical computer can predict a likely future, perhaps i will be able to be concerned in my lifetime and have scientific data to back it up. it's hypothetical, though.
even if humans evolved to be temporary, as time passes this may change. we may not even be called humans by then as you've mentioned before, but it will still be our civilisation.
Thomas Jones 100+
Well, the more we focus on the future the less we focus on the present. And the less we focus on the present, the more likely we are to "lose our direction" which will, more than likely, have a deleterious effect on that thing we call the future ... when we get there.
This seems to be a hard one for us to understand but, if you look at the BIG "problems" we are facing today, they are the result of "solutions" to problems we anticipated "yesterday."
All of them.
If we attempt to gain some sense of, let's say, peace (certainty or security) by manipulating our external environment, we will never achieve the desired outcome because it is simply not possible.
We "sort of" know this on some intuitive level. it's just that we do not seem to have any viable alternatives to "problem solving" (especially if we're skeptical rationalists) so, unless we are willing to be more open minded than we might like to be, we are, more or less, forced to either accept an inner state of mild discontent, or attempt to "solve our way out of problems that we solved ourselves into."
If it hasn't worked so far, why do we think it will work now?
----
A civilization that will "last forever" requires a universe that lasts forever - and maintains conditions that will support a civilization the whole time. I am not aware of such a universe.
griffin tucker 10+
"Nothing known to science can destroy a type two civilization. Comets, meteors, earthquakes, even a supernova." --Michio Kaku
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24428
if a universe doesn't last forever, then time or the concept of time won't last forever either because time is contained within the universe. this then creates the seeming paradox of lasting until the end of the universe and lasting until the end of time the same thing.
i would compare not solving the bigger problems that we have today or preventing possible problems that we had/have in the relative future to driving through multiple sets of green or 'go' traffic lights. it may not be noticed in some cases that many traffic lights have been passed through while they were green, but if most or all of the traffic lights are red or 'stop,' it is highly noticeable and can be frustrating, but traffic will move again eventually.
some big problems still exist today, but in my opinion they are at least being attempted to be fixed. i find that a balance between how far into the future one plans for and current issues is different for everyone. it creates diversity and balance for true progress.
Thomas Jones 100+
The Kardashev scale is not much more than speculation. We can theorize pretty much anything, so, yes, under a certain set of circumstances a "type 2" civilization might be immortal but whether those conditions will be met, or even if they can be met, is questionable.
As thought experiments, it might be fun and even fruitful to think along these lines but you and I will only be here for the blink of an eye so, for all intents and purposes, we live, and will continue to live in a sub-type 1 civilization; and the question of reaching a type 2 civilization will not be answered in our lifetime, if ever.
BIG ideas that solve BIG problems sometimes cause us to lose sight of the fact that it is often simple things such as becoming a vegetarian, or riding a bike, that might be the best thing we could do to improve the chances our present civilization might survive.
griffin tucker 10+
Tim blackburn 30+
griffin tucker 10+
if the computer does include itself in it's predictions, this is a form of control - ie. attempting to control so much of the future in regards to it's surroundings and itself that the accuracy of predicting the future increases.
it's a computer, though. just because it can predict that you would pour water on it, doesn't mean that it would stop you - unless it was programmed to.
most people's instincts are to assume that this is a bad idea due to fictional takes on the idea of artificial intelligence - for good reason - but, what are the possible benefits?
do the benefits outweigh the risks? maybe not, but i can see the possibility of the algorithm being programmed happening anyway.