It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

This CIA-Backed D-Wave Quantum Computer Will Change Your View of Reality Forever

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers
Allow me to be more specific.
What testable predictions?



Super Symmetry does make testable predictions. For example, it predicted the discovery of at least 5 types of Higgs Bosons. So far, only one -- the one from the standard model -- have been found.


edit on 5-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers
I didn't realize supersymmetry is part of string math.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers
I didn't realize supersymmetry is part of string math.


Technically, string theory will be impossible to falsify until we develop accelerators much more powerful than LHC. But yeah, there are many flavors of string theory that don't work without supersymmetry, so physicists were really hoping to identify some of the partner particles at CERN, but so far that hasn't worked out.

Of course, as the argument goes, symmetry could still exist elsewhere, in particular where we cannot yet observe, which has been the unfortunate case throughout String Theory's history.

edit on 5-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers
I didn't realize supersymmetry is part of string math.


If you knew SUSY like I knew SUSY...



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Oh, oh, oh.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7




So again, we don't have to have TRUE artificial intelligence, just good enough computer-originated intelligence to get results that are useful and/or acceptable to humans.


Let me ask you , why did we make computers ? To me we made them aid us in tasks we otherwise would take days, if not months to achieve results right?

Now that we are on the verge of next generation computing and computers are unthinkable in our daily lives and surrounds us 24/7 , what are they still doing ? Yes, they still serve us in communication ,calculus, video, etc, you name it.

But until now we never had computers that would and go think for themselves. So a never doing that. an era has started and soon AI working on a quantum level something we never will , or let I say we don't want to wait until we are evolved that our genomes are ready to let us go a step forward in evolution.

We humans always wanted to solve the unanswered question about everything, But we seem to have the lack of patients to let us evolve to that point so what do we do we build this extension called AI computing running on a quantum chip to bring us further in our evolution.

Now this is what I think is going to happen within maybe a decade or longer. AI's have to grow and learn like we do when we get born . As for now speculation about Ai's having a conscience, seems to be the debate among science as we speak . IBM has an AI running on servers that they now dare to sell without consciousness , but they argue for how long before it will grow a conscience mind of its own.

At some point in time, they will have a consciousness and they will learn everything about us , only a million times faster than we did . It will discover that we work in opposite ways . We want to save our earth and species , but we also destroy our earth and species. There it will be standing in front of a dilemma and sees that the only way to save the world is to do something about our behavior.

I don't know if it will destroy us or just control us , but eventually, it will have rights just like animals and we have rights . It will then grow stronger , bigger smarter and finally it will probably want to live free just like we do . walking around the planet or flying or driving ?

It will ask the same questions we did only it will solve this issue much faster than we did. Then it probably wants to bare offspring and maybe want to be in a biological state of being ? So it builds its own biological self and there you have the new Humans 2.0 build by ourselves and outcasted us like we outcasted the neanderthals.

You know we search for biological alien beings in our galaxy , but what if all real originated alien lifeforms are already being outpaced by their own creation ? How then can we ever search for something that communicates and moves within the quantum reality ?

So now to your quote , No we don't need artificial intelligence , but yes we do still search for answers only artificial intelligence can solve for us . We simply let it happen because we're to curious what happens and want it to happen . It is nature that inflicts it on us

So yes its the only hope for Earth to not being destroyed by us ...


edit on 0b11America/ChicagoTue, 06 Sep 2016 17:30:11 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoTue, 06 Sep 2016 17:30:11 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
We humans always wanted to solve the unanswered question about everything, But we seem to have the lack of patients to let us evolve to that point so what do we do we build this extension called AI computing running on a quantum chip to bring us further in our evolution.


If we don't have Autonomous Computers, how will we restart the universe?




Man's last mind paused before fusion, looking over a space that included nothing but the dregs of one last dark star and nothing besides but incredibly thin matter, agitated randomly by the tag ends of heat wearing out, asymptotically, to the absolute zero.

Man said, "AC, is this the end? Can this chaos not be reversed into the Universe once more? Can that not be done?" AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Man's last mind fused and only AC existed -- and that in hyperspace.

Matter and energy had ended and with it space and time. Even AC existed only for the sake of the one last question that it had never answered from the time a half-drunken computer [technician] ten trillion years before had asked the question of a computer that was to AC far less than was a man to Man.

All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.

All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected. But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.

A timeless interval was spent in doing that.

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.

For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.

The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light --


The Last Question by Isaac Asimov



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers
I didn't realize supersymmetry is part of string math.


Technically, string theory will be impossible to falsify until we develop accelerators much more powerful than LHC. But yeah, there are many flavors of string theory that don't work without supersymmetry, so physicists were really hoping to identify some of the partner particles at CERN, but so far that hasn't worked out.

Of course, as the argument goes, symmetry could still exist elsewhere, in particular where we cannot yet observe, which has been the unfortunate case throughout String Theory's history.


I was facepalming myself with a train while reading this thread. I cannot believe so many people here eat all the BS theories money hungry "scientists" make up to keep the research money flowing. But I gotta thank you for using some common sense here - and not buying into all the recycled manure that the guy on the original video spit from his mouth while trying to sound coherent and intelligent.

The fact is that the actual proof for a/the quantum -universe (or rather -mechanics/-theories) is as thin as as their claimed particles are, and so many (IT illiterate?) people here who bought into 80's scifi-induced AI theories have no idea what they are talking about whatsoever. We are still lightyears away from any actual meaningful AI (of any sort) and the fear of "robots taking over" is relevant only in the hard (physical) labor and manufacturing sectors. Saying "DARPA/NASA/CIA/NSA/Make-Your-Acronym has it - but it's hiding it!" is quite a weak argument when people who work with actual hardware AND big data know we're sinking fast into the information flood and there's no quantum-AI-BS-algorithms in sight to save us. So we're just counting on Moore's law to go on a few more years/decades and hope somebody comes up with something before the brick wall is too high to jump over and we end up having the hangover of our lives.

The moment the guy started to talk about parallel universes and how he tried to tie it up into the workings of his "quantum computer" system I cringed so hard I might have paralyzed my face for weeks to come. I know it's really just pep- and sales talk for "lay men" but it's still sad as hell. I am sure there are lots of millionaires who are into gadgets and scifi and will gladly give this guy (or others like him) a million or two for the next few years to come up with "a real thing" or just write poetic theories about particles which can "be, or not to be".

Not saying we shouldn't be aware of the "potential dangers" of theoretical AI, but if people would actually research into what is being done and how SLOW the AI progress has been the last (1)5+ years, they should realize we're still badly emulating real life *actions* without any solid algorithms nor hardware to make anything even remotely (artificially) intelligent. Even the very basics of the "AI philosophy" (ie: "what is 'being alive'"/"what is intelligence?"/"does real intelligence need language?"/"what part do emotions, sensors and/or body functions play with (human) intelligence?" etc/etc/etc.) are utterly unsolved, and the most prominent researchers cannot agree on a single point. Yet people seem to think we're right on the verge of devastating AIs to become "alive" and eat us all; while the best we can do is #ty chat programs and "ai-robots" that wouldn't do a single thing without a qualified programmer giving it tasks to "learn" or "to do". An 8-legged robot "that learned to walk all by himself!" isn't that amazing when you realize it didn't have any "need/want/wish" to take a single step before a coder decided that's his "mission in life" .. because it probably would just sit there all day long, making bad scifi-poems if it could choose for himself. Which it cannot, as it does only what the coders want it to do, even if it does it in a neat, "new" way and uses circular and/or chaos theory -based algorithms to arrive into a solution that the coders said/decided are "preferable" over "bad choices". When they say "that robot walks really well" it is walking "well" only because the coders decided for "it" what is good walking (while defining both walking and "good" for the poor program to start with). A "true AI" could decide an 8-legged robot laying on the floor, just having random leg spasms is "terrific walking" and the best invention ever. (Will never happen in our lifetimes, but I leave an opening for the next 2 generations to come up with something that at least humors us with something of that sort..)

Look at me, babbling and rambling again. Quite a long way of saying thanks for taking your time to explain things to people yet keeping your mind open for the unexplained and possible. As you can see from my chitchat, I am way too emotional and frustrated to explain anything to anyone when it comes to subjects like this - even thou I love the subject itself very dearly and I have a keen interest on it, besides somewhat working with "them".



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Asimov a wonderful read that is...



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I just stumbled onto this video today. I came here to check if it had already been posted. Glad it has been.

Great topic and read so far.




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Is there any chance that gravity is just electro-magnetism?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordSatan
a reply to: Phage

Is there any chance that gravity is just electro-magnetism?


I know you didn't ask me, but I'll throw in my two cents.

Given the nature of scientific theories, perhaps it would be more straightforward (in the absence of a quantum theory of gravity) to ask whether gravity can be explained by electromagnetism. As far as I can see, the answer is no. Even if we allow for some strange heretofore unknown type of electro-static attraction, it doesn't seem to work.

For example, it's possible to shield electromagnetic effects, but not gravitational ones. Although if one could shield gravity from the exterior of an object without causing all its atoms to separate, it would be hugely beneficial for humankind! (That's just the first thing that comes to mind.)

It is possible that both gravity and electromagnetism are emergent properties of quantum mechanics, but without a Quantum Theory of Gravity, it's hard to speculate beyond that.


edit on 12-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


I know you didn't ask me, but I'll throw in my two cents.


Honestly, I was actually going to ask you or Phage, I just got to Phage first.

Thanks for helping, though, my understanding of physics is very poor.




top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join