The mathematics of artificial intelligence.

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Counter, Feb 4, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    If they were mathematical constructs, they'd be abstract.
    Since they're physical structures, they're manifest.

    Since math wasn't invented to describe nature until man came along, all that there was was physical structures subject to forces. We invented math to be able to quantify those physics.

    You don't get to manipulate the meaning of words to suit your ideas.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    deleted
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    It's the mathematical values and functions which are deterministic of physical manifestations.

    You can say that the physical collapse of a star is causal to it going nova, but it is the mathematical values (size, mass) of the collapsing star which determine if it will go nova or not

    The mathematical potentials (values) always determine the physical expression in reality.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    Values are numbers. Numbers were invented by Man.


    It is the the forces that determine the physical expression.

    An atom is drawn with a physical force to another atom. That's nature.
    I can describe the magnitude of the force, based on the distance. Guess what language I would use to describe it?
     
    river likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Yes, and the mathematics of the forces determine the result
    Mathematics of course. But regardless of the language used, the result will always be in accordance with the mathematics of the physical potentials jnvolved in the function.

    You don't choreograph a tap-dance by telling the dancer to just tap his toes and heels (which is the force making the tapping sound). Tap-dance patterns have their own mathematical language/
    From wiki,
    Define value in math
    In mathematics, value may refer to several, strongly related notions:

    The value of a variable or a constant is any number or other mathematical object assigned to it.

    The value of a mathematical expression is the result of the computation described by this expression when the variables and constants in it are replaced by some numbers.

    Patterns are the observed quantifiable mathematics of a function.

    The Fibonacci Sequence is an abstraction of a recurring mathematical pattern in nature.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    There are no mathematics of forces. There are physics of forces. There are mathematics that describe the physics of forces.

    Good. Acknowledgement that mathematics is a language. Language is a human invention.

    Only if we have applied the correct mathematics to describe the physics.

    We thought we had applied the correct mathematics (Newtonian) to describe the physics of gravitational lensing. But our math was wrong. We needed to invent new mathematics (Einstein's relativistic equations) to properly describe the physics we were seeing.

    Yes, which we invented.

    Yup. And numbers are a human invention. Heck, not even every culture uses the same numbers.
    Zero was not invented until after Rome rose and fell.

    There is no math in nature. There is physics that governs construction. Math describes that physics.
    And, again, the math does not always describe the physics correctly.
    We're tinkering with it, as we get more sophisticated at writing the language.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Of course they do, everything (including forces, geometrics, functions, values) in the universe can be described by mathematical abstractions., it is the essence of the fabric of spacetime .
    No, it's a human discovery that forces can only function in accordance to strict mathematical instructions. Mathematics = Determinism.
    One physicist explained that if we ask the universe "nicely" (with correct mathematics), it will give us all the answers we seek.
    Yes , Newton's question was not fully formed and the answer was not fully revealed until Einstein asked the mathematical question correctlly using available knowledge from observation.
    Actually, Leibnitz already had symbolically described the patterns of gravity, long before it was named gravity.
    Because we have not yet discovered all the right questions to ask.
    I agree, we are still learning the language of abstract universal mathematical values and functions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    We finally agree.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    The only point we disagree on is the scope of description. You are arguing the physical aspect of reality. I include the abstract non-physical universal potentials.

    Potential = That which may become physical reality.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Consider the abstract command: *IF THIS (value), THEN THAT (value)*.
    Where would you place it, in the realm of Physics or Mathematics?

    I have wanted to revisit the argument that different cultures have different mathematical systems and languages. This is true, but whereas the human symbols may differ, the observed natural function would be identical if given the same physical conditions, regardless of human symbolic representation.

    To achieve consistency, we have developed international scientific standards or translations, (perspectives). Different perspectives are the foundation for Relativity which is observer dependent even in the abstract, but does not interfere with actual physical behaviors. That's the problem between QM and Relativity. One describes the physical, the other describes a variable abstract truism.
    But both have Mathematics as a common denominator.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    If they're non-physical, then the universe doesn't use them.

    Actually, that's logic.
    Mathematics is founded on logic, in the form of axioms - statements that are taken (or declared) to be true, but cannot be proven to be true, such as a+b = b+a.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    The universe does not need to express it's latent potentials all at once. E = Mc^2, but not everything explodes either.
    Because the a priori inverse is mathematically false.

    a + b = a + b, anything else introduces a chronological variable to the equation, which becomes apparent when trying: a - b = b - a. Obviously we are dealing with mathematically inverse values.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,313
    Nonetheless, the universe does not use abstracts.

    You asked where I would put your statement. It's logic; a foundation of math.

    The a+b=b+a is an example of an axiom. No reason to analyze it.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Are you familiar with Bohm's *Implicate Order*?
    ???
    Is a - b = b - a an example of an axiom? It is a mathematically false equation, no?
    I can imagine this axiom: 2 + 2 = 2 x 2, even though they represent different mathematical functions.

    We differ only in that you view mathematics as a descriptive language only, without considering the implications of our ability to mathematically symbolize (describe) the observed patterns of physical expressions and functions in the first place and which imply an underlying self-ordering system which is not physical itself but which precedes and determines the actual form of physical expression. This is how I understand the abstract mathematical aspect of Bohmian Mechanics and the concept of an Implicate Order.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Here is an excerpt of wiki article on Bohmian mechanics, which IMO suggests certain fundamental, abstract, non-physical guiding principles in the form of universal *common denominators*. This information such as functional imperatives that ultimately determine how the active physics must become manifest in specific observable *patterns* and *gradient values*.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential#Relativistic_and_field-theoretic_extensions

    Potential = That which may (mathematically) become (physical) reality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,626
    Dave, thanks for making me do some serious research on the implied meaning of the word "value". As English is my second language, I often refer to dictionaries for definitions of a word and try to find some "underlying fundamental principles.
    From this I believe that your single definition is not adequate to describe the entire range of definitions inherent in the word "VALUE".
    It occurs to me that the definitions of the word *potential* is synonimous to the expression of inherent but "latent" quantifiable values., which would be an abstraction.
    I recommend that you do some deep research on both the definitions of *value* and *potential*,
    I am sure you will see that they have related (if not interchangeable meanings.
    IOW, values can exist in the abstract as potentials (values which may become expressed as quantifiable properties during physical expressionsn.
    http://www.bing.com/search?q=potential definition physics&qs=AS&pq=potential definition&sk=AS2&sc=

    IMO, the word "potential" (latent values and abilities) has profound implications on the orderly expression of physical evolution in reality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017

Share This Page