EvaPeron

You just know this was an op run by Harry Pierce and company, lol!

Godspeed, Veeger. Godspeed.

The statement that translating an outcome in a mathematical model into the physical world is, in quantum mechanics, a probabilistic operation simply depends on one's viewpoint. The Schrodinger Equation IS deterministic. As always, this is simply a matter of how one views quantum mechanics.

Stating the obvious here, but at what point do we drop the word "simulation" and just say IBM has electronically re-created a macaque monkey brain? Doing that would then entail ethical issues, just like if it were a real monkey. Does not sound like they are quite "there" yet, but they sound close. Let's quit "monkeying about" with weasel words like "simulation" and start tackling the inevitable ethical considerations head-on.

And this is why, boys and girls, we don't do bath salts.

Yes, I call cannibalistic tribes murderers (provided any still exist, hopefully not). But my point is to not rush to make simplistic categories. My attitude on these and related issues is that it is enough work, more than enough work, for me to figure out how to live my own life ethically, without spending energies casting judgements upon others. Personally, I would never hunt dolphins or whales - I don't like hunting anyway and would not do that, heck, I take insects outside when I find them inside rather than stepping on them, lol - more seriously, yes, I find this research very compelling and for these reasons the concept of harming sentient beings is very troubling to me, and would not want to hunt a dolphin or a whale any more than, say, a visitor from another planet. That said, these are still complex issues which science can inform upon, but we need also to understand that in nature, in biology, one's own species is the priority, and so the "better angels of our nature" may and hopefully do go towards wanting humane treatment for more sentient creatures, but also let's not get on a bully pulpit on sensitive and complex matters. Again, I have found it is hard enough to try and be an ethical person for oneself, without trying to be judge and jury over others. That is my only point with the Eskimo tribe reference. :-)

Cool problem. I LOVE optimization problems like this, lol. A good "start up" kind of idea too. Scheduling ambulances. Requires not just optimizing for streets, etc., but for time, times of night there are more calls, etc. Requires forecasting, historical data, and so on. Really a very cool problem. In a nutshell, you need a probablistic model of what times have more calls, and where these are likely to come from, and spread out your buses accordingly. Perfect for machine learning solutions. You could have a neural net to give you your probablistic model, then some kind of cost-based heuristic to make decisions based upon the model and real-time data. The coolest problems are the ones with no one right answer, but with "better" and "worse" answers, because, well, they are just more fun, lol. Contact me at FrankErdman2000 AT yahoo dot com if you want to discuss more - I can't get into too many details on a public forum due to things like NDA etc. :-) Put bus scheduling or something in subject line. Seriously though, thanks for this post. Anything to prevent boredom. :-)

We need to be very careful here. There are those (not myself) who would contend that a fetus is a "person", thereby implying that abortion is "murder". I disagree with that, but if we say cetaceans are "persons" than is whaling then "murder"? Are we calling the Eskimo tribes who to this day hunt whales as part of their cultural tradition "murderers"? I am all for conservation, don't get me wrong, but willy-nilly throwing around the word "person" is not helpful, it is not helpful in the debate about reproductive choice and it is not helpful in the conservation debate either.

A more general idea that the more "conscious" (variously defined) an entity is, the more it should be treated humanely. That makes sense to me, and to most people I would think. But we need to figure out how to do this with getting into ethical quandaries like the ones outlined.

If we are on the subject of what animals it is ethical to hunt, etc., how about more strongly protecting the Great Apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans) as they are our closest cousins in nature? Whales are more a rival, than anything else.

I thought recently what makes some people forever poor and some people forever prosperous. Really, it is mentality. The poor will burn principle as soon as they get it. The rich will not. That simple. The rich stay rich by not touching principle, only interest, and then, not even all of the interest. The poor stay poor by burning principle as soon as they have it. It really is quite simple. Change mentality, change results.

"A touch, a touch I do confess." (Hamlet) LOL. Yes, "mapping" is a better term than "operation" for reasons you put forward. :-)

Seriously, "true that", and that is why although most of my "day jobs" deal with Java, C is cooler, lol.

A function is a type, is a set, is a number. And that, frankly, is difficult to get around. Coming from the C / Java world, it is hard to understand that "types" are really sets (in a mathematical sense) which in turn, are numbers (i.e. the set of natural integers), and a function (in terms of the value it returns) is a number as well and can be considered as being an "operation" upon a set, i.e., put set A into set B and one has set C. Function == Type == Set == Number, or, perhaps, a Number is simply an instance of a Set which in turn is another way of saying Type, so, basically, Function == Set. What makes it conceptually difficult is that the word "function" entails "operation", which entails "time", when, really, one could think of "function" as sort of being "those steps one has to go through in order to define a set of type S".

A set is a theorem, so now we have, Theorum == Type == Set == Number. A function is simply the way of defining or proving the Theorum, e.g. if set A == B, and B == C, then A == C is a function, which itself is a Set, conjoining A and C.

The "type" of an object (integer, char, whatever) is really a Set, and the way to construct that set (also being itself a set) is a function, which is what one might call a "program".

These things are different ways of looking at the same thing. A "type" (set) is the Theorum, its proof is the function (program which constructs the Theorum or Set).

The only difference between function/program and Set/Theorum is the former "constructs" the later, the former being "temporal" the latter being "eternal" or put it another way, the former being the "building blocks" the latter being the "finished product".

So yes pointers are numbers, which though are Sets, constructed by functions and these sets construct the Theorums. The type is the Theorum, the function is the construction of that Theorum, done vis-a-vis Sets and that is what (IMHO) that thing which we call "computer science" is all about. :-)