Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Worldview Manager: Complexity Theory, Strong AI, Axiom of Choice, Quantum Computing, Quantum Mechani

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:50 PM
Original message
Worldview Manager: Complexity Theory, Strong AI, Axiom of Choice, Quantum Computing, Quantum Mechani
Worldview Manager

Welcome to Worldview Manager! Worldview Manager is a program that attempts to help users uncover hidden inconsistencies in their personal beliefs. You can read more on the About page, or you can head directly to the Topics page to begin.

About Worldview Manager

Worldview Manager is a prototype for a framework and website that help users uncover hidden inconsistencies in their personal beliefs ("worldviews").

The website does not actually understand the belief systems nor consider one to be more correct than the other. Instead, it has a record of which opinions are logically inconsistent; the user selects some "topic" and the website presents him or her with a series of statements in that topic, one by one -- the user indicates agreement or disagreement with the statement, and the system detects when some response contradicts previous responses.

Worldview Manager is written from scratch, primarily in PHP, but with some components in Haskell and Scheme. It is generously hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The contents, design, and source code of the website are all available under the Apache Software License Version 2.0. The source code may be viewed and downloaded at http://www.gitorious.org/worldview .

For the interested, there is also a very comprehensive manual about the inner workings of Worldview Manager.

Please see the Contact page if you want to write to the authors. We are especially interested in user-contributed Topics, but all correspondence is welcome!

Topic Selection

Please select a topic from the list below.

The program will present you with a series of statements and ask you to indicate your level of agreement with them.

We would love to get more topics. If you would like to contribute your own topic, please use the contact link.

* Complexity Theory
* Strong AI
* Axiom of Choice
* Quantum Computing
* Libertarianism
* Quantum Mechanics

Via The Quantum Pontiff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Wow. NNadir makes a delusional ad hominem attack.
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 12:00 AM by bananas
Nothing surprising about that, is there?

edit to add: Thanks for kicking my post!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm aware, I think, of most of my internal inconsistencies.
Some are quite glaring, others less so.

They arise primarily from incomplete information. I mean, I can observe something but still consider that my inference isn't valid--perhaps I'm missing information? Perhaps I don't understand things fully.

Rather than view this as a liability, I consider it a plus. I can alternate between suspending judgment and taking varying stancse on some topics--seldom does it matter. It keeps me questioning all sides of a number of issues. It also keeps me from disillusioned when what was presented as the final answer to a problem turns out to be in need of revision.

I look at it the same way I look at inconsistencies in a natural language's structure: Every language has a mix of dead, moribund, productive, and innovating processes. The dead ones provide complexity and irregularity, and hint at the language's past. The ones that are moribund and innovating show change in progress, either how currently productive processes came about, or what the language was likely to have been like. The ones that are productive keep things running. And the ones that innovate are always marginal, except when they answer some need, possibly a structural one, on the part of the speakers. Show me a language without such complexity, and I'll show you an artificial language with no native or near-native speakers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rather stupid site.
Apparently my belief that "everyone should have a right to vote" is inconsistent with "children should not have a right to vote."

Well, sure, technically. If you want to be really silly about it.

Also, their "quantum mechanics" is of the wonky pseuodscientific variety. There's no reason this should be in the science forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yeah, it's pretty retarded. I answered with 100% confidence on many questions...
...and it didn't complain at all. As soon as I started answering with varying degrees of confidence it complained that I was being inconsistent. Many of the results I got had others explaining in the comments section how asinine the "contradictions" were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Some background on the project
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. This absolutely belongs in the science forum
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 06:09 PM by bananas
The fact that it is an open-source AI project by an MIT professor who specializes in quantum computing and complexity theory makes it de facto material for the science forum.

edit to add some background on Scott Aaronson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson

Scott Joel Aaronson (born May 21, 1981)<1> is a theoretical computer scientist and faculty member in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Contents
* 1 Education
* 2 Career
* 3 Work
* 4 Intellectual property
* 5 References
* 6 External links

Education

He obtained his B.Sc. in computer science from Cornell University in 2000,<2> and his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley in 2004, under the supervision of Umesh Vazirani.<3>

Career

After postdoctorates at the Institute for Advanced Study and the University of Waterloo, he took a faculty position at MIT in 2007.<2> His primary area of research is quantum computing and computational complexity theory more generally.

Work

He is a founder of the Complexity Zoo wiki, which catalogs all classes of computational complexity.<4><5> He is the author of the much-read blog "Shtetl-Optimized" as well as the essay Who Can Name The Bigger Number?.<6> The latter work, widely distributed in academic computer science, uses the concept of Busy Beaver Numbers as described by Tibor Rado to illustrate the limits of computability in a pedagogic environment. An article of Aaronson's, "The Limits of Quantum Computers", was published in Scientific American,<7> and he was a guest speaker at the 2007 Foundational Questions in Science Institute conference.<8> Aaronson is frequently cited in non-academic press, such as Science News<9>, The Age<10>, ZDNet<11>, Slashdot<12>, New Scientist<13>, The New York Times<14>, and Forbes Magazine<15>.
Intellectual property

Aaronson was the subject of media attention in October 2007, when he accused an advertising agency of plagiarizing a lecture he wrote on quantum mechanics in an advertisement of theirs.<16> He alleged that a commercial for Ricoh Australia by Sydney-based agency Love Communications appropriated content almost verbatim from the lecture.<17> Aaronson received an apologetic email from the agency in which they claimed to have sought legal advice and did not believe that they were in violation of his copyright. Unsatisfied, Aaronson pursued the matter, and the agency settled the dispute without admitting wrongdoing by making a charitable contribution to two science organizations of his choice.<17>

<snip>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's the intellectual equivalent of "what marvel superhero are you?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. Can tell just by looking at the descriptions that it's for know-nothing cranks...
Who don't know shit about math or physics, but feel left-out, and want to sound smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. If someone was a know-nothing crank, they certainly might see it that way.
The purpose is described in the Forbes article in post #7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 05:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. The questions are not well-crafted IMO
Edited on Mon Sep-21-09 05:51 AM by struggle4progress
In the AC section, after I agreed with AC, the site eventually complained essentially that the statements

"For any two sets A and B, there is either an injective map from A to B or an injective math from B to A"

and

"There exists a measure on R^3 (3-dimensional euclidean space) that is invariant under rotation and translation"

indicated logical inconsistency


The "proof" was that there are non-lesbesgue-measurable sets. But, as correctly indicated by the comments on the page calling out the "contradiction", lesbesgue measure is universally called a "measure on R^3", and if the question intended that the sigma-algebra for the measure be the full powerset 2^(R^3) of the space, rather than the merely the algebra of borel sets, it should have so indicated

<edit:> On the other hand, perhaps I was honestly caught by a contradiction between

"For any two sets A and B, there is either an injective map from A to B or an injective math from B to A"

and

"Every two-player, deterministic, perfect-information, alternating-move game with finite branching (but possibly infinite length) has a winning strategy for one of the two players"


I'm going to have to think carefully whether the second statement (with its "finite branching" condition) is really the axiom of determinateness -- and if it is, it implies all subsets of R^3 are lesbesgue-measureable, suggesting a lack of intelligence on my part in objecting as before the edit

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. OK. I think Worldview Manager was right on the second point: AC is incompatible
with "Every two-player, deterministic, perfect-information, alternating-move game with finite branching (but possibly infinite length) has a winning strategy for one of the two players"

Finite branching is irrelevant: the proof given in Jech's book on AC that AC => -AD will still work with minor modifications to construct a two-player, deterministic, perfect-information, alternating-move game with finite branching such that neither player has a winning strategy (under the assumption AC)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Interesting concept. Flawed by binary restrictions.
Many of it's vaguely asked questions imply strictly binary outcomes. Ok in a philosophical discussion, but self defeating in our shades of gray world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC