Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation 583
TMB writes "Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkman, astrophysicists at Case Western Reserve University (and in LK's case, author of a number of books including Physics of Star Trek), just submitted this nice little paper to Phys. Rev. Letters. It claims that in an accelerating universe, the existence of a future event horizon puts a fundamental physical limit on the total amount of calculation that can be done, even in an infinite time. This limit is much smaller than the traditional Hawking-Beckenstein entropy. Among other things, this implies that and Moore's Law must have a finite lifetime, here calculated to be 600 years, and that consciousness must be finite."
Exception (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, of course, for those using certain popular mind-expanding substances
Seriously though - it seems we are finding a new limit every day. Wasn't it last week that they theorized limitations on data storage, as well as data transmission speed?
enough! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exception (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Roger Penrose - linky link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Infinite Wisdom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the article is based on assumptions. But if they're all pretty reasonable assumptions, then it would seem to be a pretty good conclusion. Or am I missing something?
Moore's Law? It's not a theory, just a curve! (Score:5, Insightful)
All technologies seem to obey this general law. Software, chips, disk space, they all tend to zero.
Even a passenger jet costs a fraction of what it did 20 years ago.
Moore's Law turns this around to say that for the same price we can expect more and more capacity. Long before 600 years are passed, this capacity will effectively reach "infinite", being the point where no-one can use more capacity or power, no matter what the application. At which point Moore's Law will gently slow down.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a limit to consiousness on the high end of an expanding universe then we should also be able to make educated guesses at the low end and then put a front time on the resulting "wave" of intelligence.
If we have a beggining of the "wave" then we should be able to make better educated guesses about the distribution of intelligence in the universe and possible level of advancement of any intelligent life we might find. We might discover, for example, that we're reletively advanced (came early in the wave) and that we're less likely to find more advanced life. On the other hand, we may find that we're late in the wave and thus likely surrounded by life much more advanced than us.
This could be a much better way of looking at extraterrestrial life than just guessing based on the number of stars.
TW
well, duh (Score:4, Insightful)
so
Re:assumptions (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider the vast amount of storage required for the average human being to function. Try making a list of all the faces you would instantly recognise, celebrities, friends, family, work-mates etc. The storage for that alone would be immense.
Perhaps the brain is just the processor, acting on some transdimensional storage area. Its not totally crazy right?
To take this a step further, perhaps our entire consciousness is stored externally and the brain is just the connector. Trippy yes... impossible no...
On an even more off-topic note, I wonder how many people actually spot the reference to a popular cult TV show in your sig... chalk a yes up for me
Re:enough! (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't. It gives an excellent measure of scale! The statement that Moore's law is limited by the universe to 600 years duration gives an idea of how unimaginably FREAKING FAST our technology is expanding at the moment. 600 years in the scale of all time is a really short time.
Also, it sorta shows how far we are from the limit in terms of what we are capable of at the moment.
J
Re:Infinite Wisdom? (Score:3, Insightful)
All that aside, should God be the only infinite being, it rather bodes ill for the old 'Heaven' concept.
Re:Infinite Wisdom? (Score:3, Insightful)
The original calculation was made using a particular geometry of space-time. Assuming a different geometry, such as a connection to such an extension, would result in a different calculation.
Furthermore, its not clear your definition of "wisdom" is congruent to the definition of "consciousness" which is postulated in the article.
Re:Therefore God doesn't exist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Limits to pr0n? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish this discussion was in the scope of the computational power of my consciousness, though. I cannot begin to fathom the implications of matter being CREATED at the centre of the universe. I don't think I fully grasp my tax return filings (I'm filing in Poland this year), much less this discussion.
Re:Exception (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, the limitation is far beyond what human engineering could conceivably exploit. The universe is freaking huge.
There are plenty of plain old engineering problems to be solved here on earth before we get within even an unbelievably tiny fraction of the problem posed by this theoretical calculation.
Your comment is on par with worrying that there are only 3 billion men/women to satisfy one's need for sex, and therefore needing to find a way to quickly double Earth's population. There are much smaller practical limits that are imposed by other constraints which could be modified. For example, by learning to dress properly.
My personal theory: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wham! There's you upper bound on computing (at least for "full" simulations).... now all you need to do is figure out how much mass and time is available in the universe
Note: I'm not about to propose this in earnest to the scientific community. It's just a casual musing of mine. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcome.
Re:Therefore God doesn't exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to point out a huge assumption (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignoring the strong mathematical and theoretical evidence that it is based on computation, let me ask you: What do you think "computation" is?
It is fairly apparent that you are using a definition of "computation" that is sufficiently narrow as to be essentially invalid for theoretical or mathematical purposes. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re:Finite Consciousness doesn't follow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finite Consciousness doesn't follow (Score:3, Insightful)
However, since the assumption that the mind is physical has not led to contradictions, and since humans understand physics better than theology (or whatever), scientists tend to stick with the atoms-are-all-you-get approach.
Nobody's arguing that materialism is definitely the case. But it's not been shown to *not* work, and it's certainly simpler than the alternative...
Re:Exception (Score:2, Insightful)
Moore's Law... it's barely Moore's Observation.
Re:Roger Penrose (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting argument, but if you are using it to disprove Penrose, then it fails because it is circular. When you say, "there is no reason to think that a simulation of every particle that makes up a human . . . successfully simulate consciousness," you are assuming what you have set out to prove.
Re:Shadows of the Mind (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't read SotM, so I can't comment on that. My biggest problem with Penrose is that I personally am convinced that strong AI can be achieved, while Penrose believes that it is impossible. That does not mean that the book can't be good, but Penrose doesn't do a good job matching his arguments with those of his opponents.
He has a tendency to repeat arguments that strong AI supporters give, but in a way that they can be misunderstood, and then he misunderstands them and basically says they are stupid. Already in chapter one of ENM he starts ridiculing strong-AI supporters, without giving arguments. Later those arguments follow, but they are seriously flawed.
For example, while discussing Searle's Chinese Room experiment, he suggests that strong-AI supporters believe that "understanding Chinese" is in the book, and argues that it is stupid that a book can "understand" anything. But Turing's view (which is repeated by many others) is that the understanding is not in the book, but in the book + the human that reads the book. There is an emergent understanding of Chinese that comes from a book that describes how Chinese can be perfectly translated, and a human who strictly follows the rules that are written down in the book. This argument is mentioned by Penrose somewhere, but he just puts it aside as a very weak argument, that does not need refuting.
Writing like this annoys me immensly, and I suspect most my colleague AI researchers.
Incidentally, I think Penrose' work in mathematics is absolutely brilliant.
Re:Shadows of the Mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Penrose, however, simply denies that consciousness can be electronically replicated even in theory. When asked why, he waves his hands and shouts "Quantum physics!" Now while it's certainly possible that quantum phenomenon play some role in consciousness that can't be replicated by a computer, there's no real evidence for the position and Penrose is just arguing it a priori. It's sort of the metaphysical equivalent of Creationism.
Re:Infinite Wisdom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of it this way: You write a program using a genetic algorithm to solve a problem. The rules used to generate the algorithm would later be ignored, and the final algorithm would be used without any change or degregation.