This regulator is code—the software and hardware that make cyberspace as it is. This code, or architecture, sets the terms on which life in cyberspace is experienced. It determines how easy it is to protect privacy, or how easy it is to censor speech. It determines whether access to information is general or whether information is zoned. It affects who sees what, or what is monitored. In a host of ways that one cannot begin to see unless one begins to understand the nature of this code, the code of cyberspace regulates.
This regulation is changing. The code of cyberspace is changing. And as this code changes, the character of cyberspace will change as well. Cyberspace will change from a place that protects anonymity, free speech, and individual control, to a place that makes anonymity harder, speech less free, and individual control the province of individual experts only.
My aim in this short essay is to give a sense of this regulation, and a sense of how it is changing. For unless we understand how cyberspace can embed, or displace, values from our constitutional tradition, we will lose control over those values. The law in cyberspace—code—will displace them.
Non-Deterministic Social Laws
Michael H. Coen, MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
The paper generalizes the notion of a social law, the foundation of the theory of artificial social systems developed for coordinating Multi-Agent Systems. In an artificial social system, its constituent agents are given a common social law to obey and are free to act within the confines it legislates, which are carefully designed to avoid inter-agent conflict and deadlock. In this paper, we argue that social laws can be overly restrictive in that they indiscriminately apply to all distributions of agent behavior, even when the probability of conflicting conditions arising is acceptably small. We define the notion of a non-deterministic social law applicable to a family of probability distributions that describe the expected behaviors of a system’s agents. We demonstrate that taking these distributions into account can lead to the formulation of more efficient social laws and the algorithms that adhere to them. We illustrate our approach with a traffic domain problem and demonstrate its utility through an extensive series of simulations.
The pilot wave theory is one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics. It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of quantum mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current experimental evidence to the same extent as the other interpretations.
The pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory.
the theory has realism (meaning that its concepts exist independently of the observer);
the theory has determinism.
The positions and momenta of the particles are considered to be the hidden variables. However, the observer not only doesn't know the precise value of these variables, but more importantly, cannot know them precisely because any measurement disturbs them – as stipulated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
A collection of particles has an associated matter wave, which evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. Each particle follows a deterministic trajectory, which is guided by the wave function; collectively, the density of the particles conforms to the magnitude of the wave function. The wave function is not influenced by the particle and can exist also as an empty wave function.
The theory brings to light nonlocality that is implicit in the non-relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics and uses it to satisfy Bell's theorem. Interestingly, these nonlocal effects are compatible with the no-communication theorem, which prevents us from using them for faster-than-light communication.
According to pilot wave theory, the point particle and the matter wave are both real and distinct physical entities. ( Unlike standard quantum mechanics, where particles and waves are considered to be the same entities, connected by wave–particle duality. ) The pilot wave guides the motion of the point particles as described by the guidance equation.
When fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics
MIT researchers expand the range of quantum behaviors that can be replicated in fluidic systems, offering a new perspective on wave-particle duality.
Larry Hardesty, MIT News Office
July 29, 2013
In the early days of quantum physics, in an attempt to explain the wavelike behavior of quantum particles, the French physicist Louis de Broglie proposed what he called a “pilot wave” theory. According to de Broglie, moving particles — such as electrons, or the photons in a beam of light — are borne along on waves of some type, like driftwood on a tide.
Physicists’ inability to detect de Broglie’s posited waves led them, for the most part, to abandon pilot-wave theory. Recently, however, a real pilot-wave system has been discovered, in which a drop of fluid bounces across a vibrating fluid bath, propelled by waves produced by its own collisions.
In 2006, Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort, physicists at Université Paris Diderot, used this system to reproduce one of the most famous experiments in quantum physics: the so-called “double-slit” experiment, in which particles are fired at a screen through a barrier with two holes in it.
In the latest issue of the journal Physical Review E (PRE), a team of MIT researchers, in collaboration with Couder and his colleagues, report that they have produced the fluidic analogue of another classic quantum experiment, in which electrons are confined to a circular “corral” by a ring of ions. In the new experiments, bouncing drops of fluid mimicked the electrons’ statistical behavior with remarkable accuracy.
“This hydrodynamic system is subtle, and extraordinarily rich in terms of mathematical modeling,” says John Bush, a professor of applied mathematics at MIT and corresponding author on the new paper. “It’s the first pilot-wave system discovered and gives insight into how rational quantum dynamics might work, were such a thing to exist.”
Quantum Mechanics is generally considered to be the ultimate theory capable of explaining the emergence of randomness by virtue of the quantum measurement process. Therefore, Quantum Mechanics can be thought of as God's wonderfully imaginative solution to the problem of providing His creatures with Free Will in an otherwise well-ordered Universe. Indeed, how could we dream of free will in the purely deterministic Universe envisioned by Laplace if everything ever to happen is predetermined by (and in principle calculable from) the actual conditions or even those existing at the time of the Big Bang? In this essay, we share our view that Quantum Mechanics is in fact deterministic, local and realistic, in complete contradiction with most people's perception of Bell's theorem, thanks to our new theory of parallel lives. Accordingly, what we perceive as the so-called "collapse of the wavefunction" is but an illusion. Then we ask the fundamental question: Can a purely deterministic Quantum Theory give rise to the illusion of nondeterminism, randomness, probabilities, and ultimately can free will emerge from such a theory?
A transcendental function is a function that does not satisfy a polynomial equation whose coefficients are themselves roots of polynomials, in contrast to an algebraic function, which does satisfy such an equation. (The polynomials are sometimes required to have rational coefficients.) In other words, a transcendental function is a function that "transcends" algebra in the sense that it cannot be expressed in terms of a finite sequence of the algebraic operations of addition, multiplication, and root extraction.
Examples of transcendental functions include the exponential function, the logarithm, and the trigonometric functions.
ROU Killing Time wrote:I used to dabble in VGA algoristic endeavors. Always remember this:
When two sets of lines
For patterns, serpentine
That's a Moiré
Everyone who has ever owned a cat will be familiar with their unmannerly feline habit of walking across your keyboard while you are typing
Although the medieval owner of this manuscript may have been quite annoyed with these paw marks on his otherwise neat manuscript, another fifteenth-century manuscript reveals that he got off lucky. A Deventer scribe, writing around 1420, found his manuscript ruined by a urine stain left there by a cat the night before. He was forced to leave the rest of the page empty, drew a picture of a cat and cursed the creature with the following words:
“Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
[Here is nothing missing, but a cat urinated on this during a certain night. Cursed be the pesty cat that urinated over this book during the night in Deventer and because of it many others [other cats] too. And beware well not to leave open books at night where cats can come.]
Given their inclination to defile beautiful books, why were cats allowed in medieval libraries at all? A ninth-century poem, written by an Irish monk about his cat “Pangur Bán”, holds the answer:
I and Pangur Bán my cat,
‘Tis a like task we are at:
Hunting mice is his delight,
Hunting words I sit all night.
The cats were there to keep out the mice. For good reason, because a medieval manuscript offered a tasty treat for the little vermin, as this eleventh-century copy of Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae illustrates. The manuscript has been all but devoured by rats and mice and every page shows the marks of their teeth.
A mouse ate my Boethius! (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 214, fol. 122r)
Harold Cohen has been the creator and mentor of AARON, a painting robot, for more than 20 years. The result is the first robot in human history to paint original art. AARON mixes its own paints, creates striking artwork and even washes its own brushes.
If a computer composes a symphony, should the resulting musical piece be considered a work of art? And how does a computer-generated work affect our perception of human-made works? These are not theoretical questions. A recent article in Pacific Standard highlights Simon Fraser University’s Metacreation project, which aims to investigate computational creativity, in part through the development of “artificially creative musical systems.”
This past June, three members of the project— researchers Arne Eigenfeldt, Adam Burnett and Philippe Pasquiere— presented an evaluation study of their musical works composed by software programs at the 2012 International Conference on Computational Creativity. At a public concert in which both human-composed and computer-assisted music were performed by a professional string quartet, percussionist and a Disklavier (a mechanized piano that interprets computer input), audience members were unable to differentiate between music generated by a computer and music written by a human composer, regardless of their familiarity with classical music.
The Metacreation project is not the only example of advances in artificial intelligence (AI). David Cope’s Experiments in Musical Intelligence (EMI) is a software system that analyzes existing music, and then generates original compositions in the same style. What’s more, such advances aren’t limited to musical arrangements. In 2008, the Russian publishing house Astrel SPb released True Love, a 320-page novel written in 72 hours by a computer program. And the Tate Gallery, SFMOMA and the Brooklyn Museum are among the institutions that have exhibited paintings made by AARON, an autonomous art-making program created by Harold Cohen. Indeed, computers’ capabilities now rival cognitive functions once thought to be intrinsically human. Computers can form links, evaluate, and even make novel works; they can function in ways that we think of as creative. The obvious question is, if computers are performing creatively, should we consider the resulting works art?
The simplest answer, and in many ways most appealing to the human ego, is that no, these computers are not making art. Art requires intention. This is why projects like Rirkrit Tiravanija’s Untitled 1993 (Café Deutschland), in which the artist set up a functioning cafe in a private gallery in Cologne, or Lee Mingwei’s The Living Room, in which Mr. Lee transformed a gallery into a living room and selected volunteers to act as hosts, are art; their makers intended them as such. By contrast, EMI, AARON and other AI systems have no sentient intentions to make art, or anything else. Therefore, the works they create are not art, although they could be considered as such if a human had made them. Instead, it’s the software itself that is the art, and its programmers the artists.
By this reasoning, even if the computer-generated works are, in fact, works of art, they are authored not by the computer, but by human software designers. The computer is merely a tool for making art, analogous to a brush or musical instrument. As a 2010 Pacific Standard article “The Cyborg Composer” quotes EMI’s creator David Cope:
’All the computer is is just an extension of me,’ Cope says. ‘They’re nothing but wonderfully organized shovels. I wouldn’t give credit to the shovel for digging the hole. Would you?’
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest