Time: Just Like Everything Else. Plus AI Thoughts.

[wolven7]

So. New Scientist is on the uptake

New Scientist: "Is Time An Illusion?"

The Rest of Us: "Try to keep up, huh, folks? This train moves pretty fast."

The best part? '. . .he and his colleagues have worked out a method to compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be described without reference to time.'

Everything happening everywhere, all at once.

Also 'Others also urge caution in interpreting what it all means for the nature of time. "It is wrong to say that time is an illusion," says Rickles. "It is just reducible or non-fundamental, in the same way that consciousness emerges from brain activity but is not illusory."'

Which brings me to my next point.

So, directly after reading this, I came across an Amy Iris tweet, and my brain did something frightening, like my brain tends to do. Think of an Artificial Intelligence given the understanding that the components of the universe are arranged in such a manner that Time appears to move a certain way, but that re-orienting them, through perception and observation, will give rise to another understanding of the motion of Time. Now, give that AI the sophistication and computational power necessary to rightfully call itself an AI, and given the necessary algorithms to input this understanding...

What I mean is, if time can be shown to be experienced differently, by the observer/experiencer, depending upon the computational undersating and orientation of the universe, and a True AI can can be given these varying computations As Inputs...

Let's just make sure we learn to respect it, and help it understsand us, first.

I'd go into how this has rammifications for magical practice, but that much should be pretty obvious, here.

Comments

[styossarian.livejournal.com]

The Hitchhikers' Guide Mk.II, then? "Oh, so you think time flows in that direction?" Apologies for not having the exact quote(s) with me, but yes.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It could be pretty awesome, if we do it right.

[styossarian.livejournal.com]

But extraordinarily important that we do it right. Have I sent you / do you by chance read any Yudkowsky?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, and no. So you should, yes.

[styossarian.livejournal.com]

There's an absolute wealth of his stuff at Overcoming Bias, as well as some brief and wonderful bits on rationality / singularity at his personal site.

With regard to the specific idea of how AI can go Very Wrong, though, I was thinking specifically about the idea of a "paperclip maximizer".

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Sweet. Thanks.

[vonfaustus.livejournal.com]

"I'd go into how this has rammifications for magical practice, but that much should be pretty obvious, here."

See Crowley's comments on 'Retroactive Enchantment'. They may pique your interest in this regard.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Seen similar, but not those, specifically. Backwards causation in quantum frameworks has always made intuitive sense, to me, that way.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

a) Good point at the end of the article about the "time is an illusion" bit not necessarily being useful in application. Same idea as a deck of cards being inherently ordered no matter how many times you shuffle it, you're just complicating the order beyond comprehension.

b) Curious timing: elena. If we are measurable waveforms and granular, and not infinitely smaller fractals, that gives me hope for the ideas of replicators, transporters, online existence, and other such technology.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

A) I think that it's the way we correlate the complications that determines their usefulness or non-. Hence, a Tarot Reading.

B) What about her, besides the Hologram thing? Hologram model doesn't work, for me, in getting things done. At least, not without a LOT of work. Also, I see the waveforms and fractals as not being mutually exclusive.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

A) Hehe... "This card is pretty, so good stuff will happen. Oh, but it's right next to a scary card. Maybe if I cover it over with another card... no, that one looks scary too. Huh."

B) The Hologram thing. And it might take a lot of work.
Fractals can be waveforms, yes, they can be described. My objection to dealing with infinitely-smaller pieces is the inability to work with or generate such. Working with a known quantity? Piece of cake.
Granted, it's still a 10-layer wedding cake with 5 different fillings, laced fondant frosting, and piping on the sides, but it still has steps and instructions and a finished product. You can't draw a fractal, just a) different iterations in it and b) a far-enough-along iteration of it, such that a) or b) give the idea of the fractal.