Orionsarm.org

[kojikun]

Moore's law is about Transistors, Kojikun. This is another case of you needing to learn what the fuck you're talking about. Moore's law states how often the number of transistors should increase.

Originally it was. It's come to mean the rate of change of processing power.

See Wikipedia's entry for Moore's law that has the transistor-density definition, as well as other common definitions. I was using the general meaning.

[kojikun]

Oh and Nitram, since you've got your panties in a bunch about Moore's Law, why don't you just forget I ever mentioned it and look at the AI History page? There are a few different processor technologies written about on the page, each of which have different rates of change (some of which change as the technology is developed to commercial levels). Even without Moore's Law holding true, computer capabilities in OA are much greater then whats been displayed in SW.

[Symmetry]

Well, I met Anders Sandberg a year or two ago. Interesting guy, certainly not a snob. He used to gamemaster several campaigns in the OA universe - one of them during the 80th century and one during the "raw and primitive" 50th century (where most planets didn't even have beanstalks!). He never pretended OA was realistic, just that it was a very fun setting which he attempted to add semi-plausible flavor to.

I've sort of met him, too, in a different context and he seemed like a nice guy to me.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I met Anders Sandberg a year or two ago. Interesting guy, certainly not a snob. He used to gamemaster several campaigns in the OA universe - one of them during the 80th century and one during the "raw and primitive" 50th century (where most planets didn't even have beanstalks!). He never pretended OA was realistic, just that it was a very fun setting which he attempted to add semi-plausible flavor to.

I've sort of met him, too, in a different context and he seemed like a nice guy to me.

Someone should remind whoever wrote the bit about "hard science" on the website about how it was never intended to be realistic, then. But then again, that would take away their flimsy excuse to look down on SW and ST

[Symmetry]

btw, if you didn't get the exponential equation, its the equation for Moore's Law that computational power doubles every 18 months. If x is one year, then thats 2/3 of one doubling period in the law. Thats used as a power of 2 to get the doubling effect.

Isn't that a corrolarry of Moore's law, rather than the law itself? The number of calculations per second that a given amount of money buys has been increasing at a steady exponential rate since 1900 or so, long before there were transistors to shrink, and can probably be expected to continue after we stop using transistors.

[Symmetry]

Oh and Nitram, since you've got your panties in a bunch about Moore's Law, why don't you just forget I ever mentioned it and look at the AI History page? There are a few different processor technologies written about on the page, each of which have different rates of change (some of which change as the technology is developed to commercial levels). Even without Moore's Law holding true, computer capabilities in OA are much greater then whats been displayed in SW.

Sorry, I see you were already refering to that, or something like it.

[kojikun]

Sym, all definitions of Moore's law that I've ever seen, or heard used, include more then just transistor density. I was using the modern definition of the law, not the definition right out of Gordon's mouth in 1965. But you're right, it's likely to continue after we stop using transistors, and Intel and other companies are already looking how to continue this trend with new technology. Intel's webpage on Moore's Law actually discussed the companies ideas for doing just that.

[Mad]

The only way I can see this happening is if the distances involved in smashing particles together are reliant on energies far beyond what OA technology can provide. However, the fact that the various physical laws can be utilised with comparatively little energy (see note at the end of the sentence), that it's unlikely that all the laws of physics in the SW universe will be inaccesibble to the OA AIs. (Note: there has to be some non-supertech method of initiating the supertech processes in SW, otherwise they would have no way ot getting to the supertech in the first place. example: even if hypermatter reactors work on new laws of physics, you still have to start one up, which means those new laws cannot require more power or energy then standard energy sources can provide, otherwise you wouldnt be able to start the reactor because its the only power source capable of starting itself).

Not guaranteed. Some rare, exotic particle with unknown behavior and properties may open the way to the supertech, for instance. Perhaps a rare exotic particle that exists in realspace and subspace that looks just like a regular particle but can shred a hole into subspace under the right conditions. Who knows? We certainly don't.

Again, you cannot guarantee that OA can suddenly detect new physics and figure out how to use them in any reasonable timeframe. That's the fallacy that OA page made.

True, and given the time, the AIs would certainly be able to figure out those new laws. Especially if they can get there hands on someone with force ability and monitor whats going on in the person during those powers activation.

And SW, with more powerful weapons and Force users would just allow that to happen?

Oh, sorry, I thought you mean where they would find the new laws of physics when they're in the SW universe. But where the AIs found new laws of physics is irrelevant. They exist in OA.

So you concede that OA doesn't have a complete understanding of the physics in its own universe?

Mm possible. But if the same higher dimensions exist here as there, then it must be easier to access there, because primitive baseline humans can hack the math to do it while superior AIs cannot. The laws of physics must make it easier in the SW universe.

Prove that humans can "hack the math." They could use droids for the vast majority of the computational work and analysis. There's no evidence that super-intelligence would be required, since data analysis is mostly number crunching anyway.

That would require intelligences greater then those in OA, something which hasn't been observed in SW. As I said, baselines can hack the math, but superior AI cannot, so the math must be different from universe to universe.

Actually, it'd require superior sensing equipment to notice the what's going on and superior computational power to analyze the data. Nothing about superior intelligence is required.

Most of your arguments are assumption as well. "What if" was your last argument. That is an assumption, not a fact or evidence.

A "what if" argument in response to a "what if" argument. You're constantly making assertions that OA can do things, but never providing evidence for it. Where, for instance, has superior computational power been demonstrated?

Again, NOT THE SAME UNIVERSE, NOT THE SAME RULES. This was stated in the OA Vs. page, why don't you understand this?

Once again, you misunderstand the question I asked. Yet you understood it earlier in this thread. Anyway, I'll repeat it: OA doesn't fully understand the physics of its own universe, because they're still discovering "new" physics within their own universe. Why is that so difficult to understand? (Same universe, same rules. Why? Because OA = OA, and in this paragraph, I'm only discussing the OA universe.)

Oh, they could have, but their AIs seem to be incapable of anything beyond language skills. Unless you have evidence of superhuman intelligence, then droids and AIs in SW are completely useless.

All or nothing thinking. Where in data analysis is superior intelligence required that superior sensors and computational power cannot accomplish? Physics models can only be as accurate as the data used to create the model, and the data is only as accurate and precise as the sensing equipment that provides the data.

2100 level OA technology has displayed intelligence equal to human intelligence, and unquestionably superior to the intelligence of C3PO or R2D2. OA technology continues improving for thousands of years after 2100.

I'm not asking about intelligence; that's a software issue. I'm asking about computational power. You dodged. Again.

Analysis of what portions of experiments must be analysed requires some intelligence behind it.

Nothing that a SW droid shoudln't be able to handle. Today, the issue with data analysis isn't "can we understand what's going on?" so much as "is the computer powerful enough to crunch this data?" Sufficiently advanced computers should be able to crunch the data and pop out a workable equation for the data. Superior intelligence isn't required.

From the OA AI History page, its stated that yottahertz nanotic processing was available in 2370. Now, how this is worked I don't know, so don't ask. But the fact remains that in OA, they have processer abilities equivalent to what we'd consider yottahertz processors. This is a good quadrillion times more powerful then modern CPUs, and a few billion times more powerful then the required power for AI.

Evidentally, estimates for the Death Star plans yield about 900 exabytes, or 9^20 bytes.

Let's assume that was a 1^10x1^10 matrix of 64-bit values. Solving with an O(n^2) algorithm would require some 1^40 flops. Assuming a flop was one cycle, that's over 1^35 hertz to analyze the Death Star in less than 24 hours. That's 100 billion times more powerful than a yattahertz machine. And I doubt the Rebel Alliance had access to the latest and greatest number crunchers in the galaxy.

...You were saying?

Except it takes a few minutes to do. And last I heard, the calculations were navigational in nature.

Was almost instant in ESB. Han must've upgraded computers. Navigation requires calculating trajectories, gravity wells, known obsticles (asteroid fields are on the charts) and whatever oddities may exist in hyperspace.

[SirNitram]

Moore's law is about Transistors, Kojikun. This is another case of you needing to learn what the fuck you're talking about. Moore's law states how often the number of transistors should increase.

Originally it was. It's come to mean the rate of change of processing power.

See Wikipedia's entry for Moore's law that has the transistor-density definition, as well as other common definitions. I was using the general meaning.

So because people have come to apply other meanings to it, they're all just as valid? No-limits fallacy. THanks for concluding you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wow.. so I guess I wasn't the only one arguing about OA either... just in the wrong location.

Why didn't anyone tell me this before??

[Symmetry]

Moore's law is about Transistors, Kojikun. This is another case of you needing to learn what the fuck you're talking about. Moore's law states how often the number of transistors should increase.

Originally it was. It's come to mean the rate of change of processing power.

See Wikipedia's entry for Moore's law that has the transistor-density definition, as well as other common definitions. I was using the general meaning.

So because people have come to apply other meanings to it, they're all just as valid? No-limits fallacy. THanks for concluding you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

Um, ignoring the definition of the language itself an English word is defined to be what English speaking people mean when they say something. Thus, people comeing to apply meanings to something very much does mean that that meaning is valid, if most people do so. Would you say believeing that to call something "cool" could be the same as calling something good is an example of the no-limits fallacy? I hope not.

[SirNitram]

Um, ignoring the definition of the language itself an English word is defined to be what English speaking people mean when they say something. Thus, people comeing to apply meanings to something very much does mean that that meaning is valid, if most people do so. Would you say believeing that to call something "cool" could be the same as calling something good is an example of the no-limits fallacy? I hope not.

Maybe I should put this in simpler words:

Moore's Law as described here is a textbook no limits fallacy.

[Eleas]

Someone should remind whoever wrote the bit about "hard science" on the website about how it was never intended to be realistic, then. But then again, that would take away their flimsy excuse to look down on SW and ST

Uh, Mike, I get the impression what you have there is a loose circle of collaborators who don't necessary share the same opinions. Certainly they don't seem to be unified of purpose anyway near the way, say, SDnet is.

[NecronLord]

Just for fun, Jupiter brains may be immensely powerful, but they have no way i've observed of defending themselves against galaxy gun missiles (which are after all, shielded)

Frankly, given that an AI god tends to be utterly massive, and, unlike say, Culture Minds, is stuck in realspace (Hard Sci-fi again) in the form of dyson spheres, jupiter brains and the like, can someone give me a reason the empire couldn't galaxy gun them all long before they could do anything abuot it?

And shouldn't this be in OSF? OA is science fiction after all.

5x10^19 bits of information
making up 1011 articles.
8,000 years of scholarship,

I hope that's not an example of the work of a higher sophont, because if they think that's superiour to a Culture Mind, they have another thing coming (Culture minds having something like 1e27 bytes IIRC.)

[Symmetry]

So because people have come to apply other meanings to it, they're all just as valid? No-limits fallacy. THanks for concluding you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

Um, ignoring the definition of the language itself an English word is defined to be what English speaking people mean when they say something. Thus, people comeing to apply meanings to something very much does mean that that meaning is valid, if most people do so. Would you say believeing that to call something "cool" could be the same as calling something good is an example of the no-limits fallacy? I hope not.

Maybe I should put this in simpler words:

Moore's Law as described here is a textbook no limits fallacy.

Rereading the argument, you seem to be changing what you're arguing about, Nitram. Are you saying that computers can't keep doubling in power forever or are you saying that Moore's law is simply about transistors and not porcessing power? If its the former then Koji has already agreed with you, and I do to. If its the later then I'd challenge you to come up with a source better than the Wikipedia.

[SirNitram]

Rereading the argument, you seem to be changing what you're arguing about, Nitram. Are you saying that computers can't keep doubling in power forever or are you saying that Moore's law is simply about transistors and not porcessing power? If its the former then Koji has already agreed with you, and I do to. If its the later then I'd challenge you to come up with a source better than the Wikipedia.

So, your reply to the obvious statement that Moore's Law is a no-limits fallacy is to act confused and say nothing. Both definitions are a no-limits fallacy. If you don't get this, perhaps you should go look it up.

[kojikun]

Not guaranteed. Some rare, exotic particle with unknown behavior and properties may open the way to the supertech, for instance. Perhaps a rare exotic particle that exists in realspace and subspace that looks just like a regular particle but can shred a hole into subspace under the right conditions. Who knows? We certainly don't.

Again, you cannot guarantee that OA can suddenly detect new physics and figure out how to use them in any reasonable timeframe. That's the fallacy that OA page made.

The particle would show up in experiments. This would provide the groundwork required to derive newmore accurate theories.

And SW, with more powerful weapons and Force users would just allow that to happen?

You're assuming that it would be done in such a way that they'd know. But that's really neither here nor there and something for a proper SWvOA debate.

So you concede that OA doesn't have a complete understanding of the physics in its own universe?

No, I said that I didn't know you were talking about the OA universe, and the the OA vs page explicitly states that the OA universe and the SW universe are not considered the same in the particular vs debate under discussion.

Prove that humans can "hack the math." They could use droids for the vast majority of the computational work and analysis. There's no evidence that super-intelligence would be required, since data analysis is mostly number crunching anyway.

Humans had to, at some point, do the math themselves. Droids are demonstrably inferior to humans where intelligence is concerned, and their large computer systems take a good deal of time for something that is relatively trivial.

And if data anlysis of new theories of physics is just number crunching, any observations of those new properties of the universe would be analysed significantly faster by OA AIs then by SW humans.

Actually, it'd require superior sensing equipment to notice the what's going on and superior computational power to analyze the data. Nothing about superior intelligence is required.

Incorrect. Intelligence is directly related to how well physics can be understood. You cannot teach calculus and related physics to a dog because a dogs brain is not capable of understanding it. Similarly, if the math were so difficult that a superintelligent AI weren't able to understand it, then a less intelligent human would be woefully incapable of understanding it. Thats assuming the universes were infact one in the same. If they were different, then OA archailects should be able to detect the new laws of physics, because their technology can detect things on the smallest of small scales.

A "what if" argument in response to a "what if" argument. You're constantly making assertions that OA can do things, but never providing evidence for it. Where, for instance, has superior computational power been demonstrated?

I have already explain this many times. I'll repeat it one more time: The tasks a SW computer has been shown to take hours to do would take an equivalent MODERN supercomputer effectively similar amounts of time. OA computers are significantly more capable then modern computers, by many orders of magnitude, and are similarly more advanced then SW computers.

Once again, you misunderstand the question I asked. Yet you understood it earlier in this thread. Anyway, I'll repeat it: OA doesn't fully understand the physics of its own universe, because they're still discovering "new" physics within their own universe. Why is that so difficult to understand? (Same universe, same rules. Why? Because OA = OA, and in this paragraph, I'm only discussing the OA universe.)

You did not state this before and I fail to see how its relevant. Please explain.

All or nothing thinking. Where in data analysis is superior intelligence required that superior sensors and computational power cannot accomplish? Physics models can only be as accurate as the data used to create the model, and the data is only as accurate and precise as the sensing equipment that provides the data.

Again, OA technology enables sensors to detect things as small as the particles that make up matter. Anything else would have to be derived from accelerator experiments or cosmological data, both of which are easilly accessible to an OA AI.

I'm not asking about intelligence; that's a software issue. I'm asking about computational power. You dodged. Again.

Analysis of what portions of experiments must be analysed requires some intelligence behind it.

But intelligence is not just a software issue. If a computer cannot perform appropriate numbers of calculations per second, it will NEVER match human intelligence. More calculations per second would mean the AI runs faster, and be capable of more then human standard intelligence.

Nothing that a SW droid shoudln't be able to handle. Today, the issue with data analysis isn't "can we understand what's going on?" so much as "is the computer powerful enough to crunch this data?" Sufficiently advanced computers should be able to crunch the data and pop out a workable equation for the data. Superior intelligence isn't required.

Actually, understanding laws of physics is very closely tied with how intelligent we are. Just as dogs are not intelligent to understand calculus, we may not be intelligent enough to understand all the physics of the universe.

Evidentally, estimates for the Death Star plans yield about 900 exabytes, or 9^20 bytes.

Let's assume that was a 1^10x1^10 matrix of 64-bit values. Solving with an O(n^2) algorithm would require some 1^40 flops. Assuming a flop was one cycle, that's over 1^35 hertz to analyze the Death Star in less than 24 hours. That's 100 billion times more powerful than a yattahertz machine. And I doubt the Rebel Alliance had access to the latest and greatest number crunchers in the galaxy.

...You were saying?

Technology in OA during the 2300s was yottahertz level. 10k years later the technology would be far superior. Even with the very underestimating rate of one order of magnitude per century, thats 100 orders of magnitude, or 10^300. Thats a few times larger then 100 billion.

YOU were saying?

Was almost instant in ESB. Han must've upgraded computers. Navigation requires calculating trajectories, gravity wells, known obsticles (asteroid fields are on the charts) and whatever oddities may exist in hyperspace.

Upgrades, probably. But that doesn't really make it any better, because even if it took 1/1000 of the ANH time, the OA computers would still be thousands of times more capable.

I'm going to withdraw from this discussion tho, as its become mere repetition of the same things. If you want we can take this up in AIM so we don't waste board space, and upon conclusion post the chat logs.

[kojikun]

Maybe I should put this in simpler words:

Moore's Law as described here is a textbook no limits fallacy.

Which is irrelevant, because in OA, the laws of physics allows Moore's Law to be continued in non-transistor form apparently indefinitely. Stop arguing symantics, it's petty.

[SirNitram]

Maybe I should put this in simpler words:

Moore's Law as described here is a textbook no limits fallacy.

Which is irrelevant, because in OA, the laws of physics allows Moore's Law to be continued in non-transistor form apparently indefinitely. Stop arguing symantics, it's petty.

Calling a fallacy a fallacy is now arguing 'symantics(sic)'? You live in a very delusional world.

[kojikun]

Calling a fallacy a fallacy is now arguing 'symantics(sic)'? You live in a very delusional world.

No, but bitching about what I called part of the universes physics, IS symantics. You forget, Mr. High and Mighty, that OA physics lets computational ability to continue growing exponentially, hence its NOT a fallacy in the OA universe. So you're just being a nitpicky bitch as usual.

[SirNitram]

Calling a fallacy a fallacy is now arguing 'symantics(sic)'? You live in a very delusional world.

No, but bitching about what I called part of the universes physics, IS symantics. You forget, Mr. High and Mighty, that OA physics lets computational ability to continue growing exponentially, hence its NOT a fallacy in the OA universe. So you're just being a nitpicky bitch as usual.

You'd have so much more credibility if you could actually use the English language, Koji.

[kojikun]

You'd have so much more credibility if you could actually use the English language, Koji.

Ok, let me spell this out for you: Moore's Law is commonly used to refer to the exponential growth of computer processing power. In OA, the laws of physics are assumed to permit continuing exponential growth of computational power, hence in OA Moore's Law still holds. You, obviously, didn't get this, and you're just being nitpicky because your myopic view of the language has only one definition for "Moore's Law", that being the doubling of transistor density every 3/2s of a year. The issue has not been with me, or with my choice of words, but with you. Everyone else in this thread has plainly understood what I meant and noone argued about my diction, except for you. Which is not surprising.

[SirNitram]

You'd have so much more credibility if you could actually use the English language, Koji.

Ok, let me spell this out for you: Moore's Law is commonly used to refer to the exponential growth of computer processing power.

And is a big, honkin' no-limits fallacy.

In OA, the laws of physics are assumed to permit continuing exponential growth of computational power, hence in OA Moore's Law still holds.

Which, as I endeavoured to point out(But which bounced off your neutronium-lined skull), is another massive hit against their realism wanking.

You, obviously, didn't get this, and you're just being nitpicky because your myopic view of the language has only one definition for "Moore's Law",

No, retard. All definitions of Moore's Law are a no-limits fallacy. Is that continuing to bounce off your skull?

The issue has not been with me, or with my choice of words, but with you. Everyone else in this thread has plainly understood what I meant and noone argued about my diction, except for you. Which is not surprising.

Ah yes, it's all my fault that a group who praises themselves one handed bases their primary tech on a single, massive fallacy.

BTW, idiot boy, the word you're groping for and failing to get is semantics, which is not what I've been engaged in.

[kojikun]

And is a big, honkin' no-limits fallacy.

Yes, it is. But we're not talking real-world.

Which, as I endeavoured to point out(But which bounced off your neutronium-lined skull), is another massive hit against their realism wanking.

How does that change anything? I'm not arguing the realism, dumbass.

No, retard. All definitions of Moore's Law are a no-limits fallacy. Is that continuing to bounce off your skull?

When have I disagreed? Never? Thank you. Go away.

Ah yes, it's all my fault that a group who praises themselves one handed bases their primary tech on a single, massive fallacy.

Even the person I'm debating has not brought up my use of the term Moore's Law. Good bye Nitram.

BTW, idiot boy, the word you're groping for and failing to get is semantics, which is not what I've been engaged in.

Good bye, Nitram. Flame somewhere else.

[Kuroneko]

In OA, the laws of physics are assumed to permit continuing exponential growth of computational power, hence in OA Moore's Law still holds.

I'm not concerned with realism at this moment, but are the OA computer specifications posted anywhere? Computing power and size/weight would be most helpful.