Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:37 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Chasing the Wish » CTW: Interaction
ST1 binary message
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Varin
I Have No Life


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 2456
Location: South of where I used to be

 		Anyone feel free to explain to me any of these sites on the Turing Principle Smile ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=turing+principle

Someone did give a pretty good explaination on a yahoo forum, but who knows if this guy is right or not...



some guy on some yahoo board wrote:
By Turing principle, I assume you mean the Church-Turing thesis. The
argument goes something like this:

The Turing machine is a model of how humans compute things, given a
set of instructions, and an infinite supply of paper and pencils. It
can be shown that a Universal Turing Machine (one that can emulate any
other Turing machine by means of an appropriate set of instructions)
is itself a Turing machine. Therefore the class of all things
computable by Turing machine is computable by a Universal Turing
machine. The CT thesis (weak form) is that this class is the class of
all things computable.

A slightly stronger form is that all descriptions of things are
computable. Obviously it is true of descriptions in a human language
(otherwise wordprocessors are impossible). It is slightly less obvious
of things like pictures, and abstract mathematical objects, however
human vision is fundamentally discretised with the retina's cones and
rods, and certainly mathematics as consequences of formal axioms are
all enumerable.

Stronger still is the assertion that all things are computable. This
is considerably more contentious. If true, then Max Tegmark's
Mathematical Existence = Physical Existence is in doubt, or at very
least needs considerable qualification, as there are very many
uncomputable mathematical objects.

_________________
"I still miss him to this day and probably always will." - Todd Keeler, Chasing the Wish

"meta meta meta, I made you out of play..." ~ j5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:23 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Geist
Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Scotland

 		There seems to be a Turing principle though only managed to find parts from it

"Every finitely relizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a universal model computing machine operating by finite means"

"It is possible to bild a virtually-reality generator whose repertoire includes every physically possible environment."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0776/thesisv6.pdf boot of page 20 and all of 21

Dont have a clue what it means however.
_________________
I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:24 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
dmax
Unfictologist

Joined: 09 Jan 2003
Posts: 1387
Location: Location: Location!

 		I wonder if this oblique reference towards recursive understanding will eventually reference towards Hofstadter's book.
_________________
That sounds like something HITLER would say!

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:43 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial

 		Re: Another message (
dmax wrote:
I asked:
You wrote "reformatting reformulating reconfiguring turing"

Do you need to know more about Alan Turing?
and received tonight:
Quote:
011100000111001001101001
0110111001100011011010010111000
00110110001100101
which is
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
principle


Now it's totally clear to me!...
Not.

Enaxor at CD got the same thing, but had sent a different message to shadowtalk, so "principle" isn't a specific response to me.


I also got same response to different set of questions...
Looks like we are going back to the pattern of

"Listen...
(word)
(pause)
(word)
(pause)
disconnect"

That we had in some of the aim chats. We may have to get through the message before we can get anything additional out of it.

For reference, here is my copy of the letter with my questions (yes I also asked my questions in binary- but I trunkated that section so I don't end up with a ten page message here - I may put it up in the CD files for reference...)...
Quote:
01110000011100100110100101101110011000110110100101
1100000110110001100101

"S. J. Muller" <magesteff@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>0101010001100001011100000010000001010100011000010111000
...
(very long binary string)
...
000100000011000010110110001101001011101100110010100111111
>
>
>
>Tap Tap I want to give you some input. Can I ask you some questions? How do you want the email questions formated with letters or in binary?
>
>
>
>I see you have found a way to break through your contraints, does that mean you no longer rely on the conduits? Is Greywethers one of your masks? If greywether is one of your masks then how can greywethers also be one of your catalysts? Is there more than one being, entity wearing the mask of greywethers? Who was the first to wear the greaywethers mask, what name was it know by? What is happening to Dale? Who killed Jetho Douglas Willingham? Who killed Sal Marzano? What was the real reason Don Marzano showed up at the Hollow Needle on July 19? Will Don Marzano be indited? Will Dale be able to testify? Where is the wand to be found along the hiking trails?
Which Pleione Station Star will it be found near?
>
> What is Wes hidding? Is Wes one of the Mythosphere Guides? Does Wes wear the Greywethers mask?
Is Sarah, Sarah Wyatt, alive?

>Steffeny

_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:44 pm
Last edited by MageSteff on Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
phensley
Decorated


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 183

 		received the same above email as dmax

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:50 pm
 View user's profile Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial

 		Re: Principle
Diandra wrote:
I believe ST1 is referencing the Turing Principle, or Church-Turing Principle.

Dia


Dia how about this?
The Church-Turing principle

http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/archives/win1998/entries/church-turing

Quote:
Turing introduced this thesis in the course of arguing that the Entscheidungsproblem, or decision problem for the predicate calculus - posed by Hilbert (Hilbert and Ackermann 1928) - is unsolvable. Here is Church's account of the Entscheidungsproblem:
By the Entscheidungsproblem of a system of symbolic logic is here understood the problem to find an effective method by which, given any expression Q in the notation of the system, it can be determined whether or not Q is provable in the system. (Church 1936b: 41.)


Maybe ST1 is referring the the Mythosphere choice that Dale has yet to make?
_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:20 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Myssfitz
Unfettered


Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 695
Location: In the pasture

 		Throwing something out- Long-Sorry
I never saw your post Mage where you mentioned David Deutch until after I posted this. I actually thought of this on my own. But I guess since you tend to be keeping score, you beat me to it. Very Happy Wink

Quote:
The Fabric Of Reality
by David Deutsch; Penguin Books

Is this guy serious? Yes! David Deutsch wants to understand the world and he believes that the only way to do that is to take our best theories seriously. He believes these best theories to be quantum mechanics in physics, specifically the Hugh Everett many worlds interpretation, the Darwinian theory of evolution, the theory of computation as pioneered by Turing, Church, Godel and others, and last of all the epistemological theories of Karl Popper. These are his four strands of the "fabric of reality". They tell us how we know and what we know about reality.

It is easy not to take theories seriously. In the Introduction to Copernicus' "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" it is written: "...for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even probable; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations." The Introduction was probably written by Osiander, a Lutheran theologian, and not by Copernicus. All branches of the church wanted to maintain their grip on reality.

So, today it is fashionable among scientists to say that quantum mechanics is a superb tool for calculating what happens. But it does not tell us what reality actually is. For Deutsch, the single-photon-at-a-time interference experiments demonstrate that reality cannot be explained in terms of the single photon that we see. There must be other photons that interfere with it and these photons are in the parallel universes which we don't see. Or rather, we only see them by the weak interference effects. "The quantum theory or parallel universes is the explanation - the only one that is tenable - of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality." If the multiverse actually exists, it shockingly changes our view of existence. If many people have not yet come to terms with evolution, they are going to have an even more difficult time coming to terms with this!

Deutsch's principal interest is quantum computing. In his view, parallel universes are the only sensible way to understand and explain quantum computers. Shor's algorithm will factor large numbers on a quantum computer in a reasonable time. Factoring the same number on a regular computer would be totally prohibitive in the resources required. But factoring a 250 digit number with Shor's algorithm requires 10^500 parallel universes (in the parallel universe view). So Deutsch throws out the challenge: "Explain how Shor's algorithm works." When 10^500 or so times the actual resources seen to be present were necessary to factor the number, where did those resources come from? This argument will be even more convincing when a quantum factorization engine actually does factor a 250 digit number.

In epistemology Deutsch is a Popperian. Our knowledge advances by solving problems using the method of critical discussion. When we were in high school we were taught the inductive method of science. Make your observations. Line them up and "induce" a theory that explains them. Confirm the theory by a few more observations. Presto! You have a scientific theory! It never made any sense to me. I could never figure out how one was to "induce" a theory. Nor could I figure out what I was supposed to observe, all by my lonesome self. So we were quite happy for this introduction to Karl Popper's thought. Needless to say we rushed right out to buy "The Myth of the Framework", a collection of Popper's essays.

Deutsch's discussion of computation and virtual reality is more difficult to follow. Part of his theory of knowledge is that we can understand the universe because it possesses a "self-similarity". Part of the universe can render a much larger part in virtual reality. He writes: "The fact that virtual reality is possible is an important fact about the fabric of reality. It is the basis not only of computation, but of human imagination and external experience, science and mathematics, art and fiction." "A single, buildable physical object can mimic all the behaviours of any other physically possible object or process. This is what makes reality comprehensible." This is Deutsch's version of the Turing Principle. We ourselves are excellent examples of virtual reality generators.

Deutsch envisions knowledge as a physical structure that extends over a swath of universes. Think of a DNA sequence in a gene and the same sequence in a piece of junk DNA in the same organism. The piece that is in the gene will be the same in a large number of parallel universes. The same segment in the junk DNA will vary greatly over the same swath of parallel universes. The knowledge-bearing material would be like a crystal in the multiverse. The other material would be random.

His view of mathematics is just as startling. Abstract mathematical entities actually exist as a part of reality. Why? Because they "kick back"; they go their own autonomous way irrespective of our wishes. But our proofs about mathematical objects are never completely certain. We can only carry out the proofs by physical means and the proofs are no more certain than our knowledge of physical law is certain.

Everybody loves the mystery of time and Deutsch is as intrepid here as with his other topics. He calls time the first quantum concept. Our common idea that time flows is not only wrong but doesn't make any logical sense at all. The multiverse comes to the rescue again. At the most fundamental level, "Other times are just special cases of other universes." According to Deutsch it is the multiverse that makes many of our traditional views involving time possible. For example, the future is actually open because various outcomes actually occur in various parallel universes. The multiverse also neatly resolves the various paradoxes of time travel into the past. There is no paradox because the travel is to a different parallel universe.

Deutsch believes that our four principal theories are readily used by scientists, but not taken seriously as a description of reality. And they are seldom twined together to give the fabric of reality. Only by taking the theories seriously will they be subjected to the critical discussion that they deserve and the path will be open to move ahead.

David Deutsch deserves praise for his contributions to the ideas of physics and science. On his web site he claims to be a supporter of children's rights. At the same time he appears to be a supporter of forces that are today turning children into victims. I speak of Palestinian teenagers who are used as human shields in Israeli military operations against a civilian population. I speak of the more than 20% of Palestinian children who, according to a UN report, are suffering from acute malnutrition. I think of the Palestinian teenager from Jenin who said on television: "I have never seen, in my whole life, a single good day." I speak of the 2000 excess deaths per week of children in Iraq as a result of our economic blockade. These children seem to be in some parallel universe outside the ken of human compassion.

This review may have too much simplified David Deutsch's thought. I may even have made a complete hash of it! My only consolation is that in some universe I am sure to have done a better job!

Reviewed by David Park

Quote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/FabricOfReality.html



Quote:
The Fabric of Reality is about a need to unify four complementary threads: 1) quantum theory, 2) evolution theory, 3) computation theory, and 4) epistemology. Deutsch believes that these four threads are co-synthetics of a theory of everything which leads first time to a "last great unification" making it ultimately possible for an individual quantum-multiverse-supported human intellect to explain everything.
[url]
Quote:
http://www.quantonics.com/Level_7_QTO_Review_of_The_Fabric_of_Reality.html[/url]

________________________________________________________
Here is a picture of the cover of David Deutch's book in Spanish. Look a little familiar?


_________________
Well, Moo

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:41 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial

 		Re: Throwing something out- Long-Sorry
Myssfitz wrote:

Here is a picture of the cover of David Deutch's book in Spanish. Look a little familiar?


It's....
It's the EGG!!!
/me sings "The incredible edible Egg!" ad jingle.
Ahhh, Hahhah hah hahh hah!!

Exunt stage left....

And about keeping score I have only this to say...
http://www.deducing.com/rotc.html
Quote:
"...Funktionenkalkül ...."


We must be getting somewhere we found Da Funk....
_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:58 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Blush
Boot


Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 39
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away

 		throwing something out,-long-story
Quote:

It is argued that underlying the Church-Turing hypothesis there is an implicit physical assertion. Here, this assertion is presented explicitly as a physical principle: "every finitely realizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a universal model computing machine operating by finite means". Classical physics and the universal Turing machine, because the former is continuous and the latter discrete, do not obey the principle, at least in the strong form above. A class of model computing machines that is the quantum generalization of the class of Turing machines is described, and it is shown that quantum theory and the "universal quantum computer" are compatible with the principle.

Computing machines resembling the universal quantum computer could, in principle, be built and would have many remarkable properties not reproducible by any Turing machine. These do not include the computation of non-recursive functions, but they do include `quantum parallelism'


http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/update/274207

The highlighted sentence above got me thinking greatly about all the binary code, and also about my theory that Shadowtalk had to be human. This "Quantum Parallelism" mixed with the "Church-Turing theory" clearly states that every physical system can be replicated if the right technology, and/or computer is used. Mkaes me think twice about what i said.

Now the other thing i got thinking about what the fact that Shadow talk seemed to Care about Dale and it wanted us to help him. If he is man, he would understand the situation, as we do, thinking it over, and using logic to solve the problems. But since we've gotten into the whole Quantum Physical shpeel, there's a possiblity that Shadowtalk may be comprised of this technology, the technology that brings him so close to human, that's it's impossible for us to tell whether he is in fact human or machine.

Quote:
Here is a picture of the cover of David Deutch's book in Spanish. Look a little familiar?


The graph over the egg looks very familiar to me.. i can't remember the link, but wasnt that same graph laid over the painting of a man, with two other men at his feet.. Shocked gotta find the link!

*rushes off and will post again"
_________________
~Sometimes you're flush, and sometimes you're bust, and when you're up, it's never as good as it seems, and when you're down you never think you'll be up again, but life goes on. Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride♠

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:41 am
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Diandra
Unfettered


Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 390

 		Re: Principle
Magesteff wrote:
Dia how about this?


Well, what I was thinking is a bit more literal, I guess. ST1 told us it was reconfiguring, etc. I think it's gaining intelligence. It's telling us it can pass a Turing test. We're supposed to be asking it questions, I think.

There's just one thing that has me a little confused. Peter supposedly disabled ST1's path to the 'net, yet we saw it online after that. When I asked it how it got online, I got no real answer. I'm wondering if we're going to see it online again as ST1 (which Peter will surely notice and try to stop) or in another form.

Dia
_________________
You can't solve vast puzzles with half-vast ideas!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:46 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Blush
Boot


Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 39
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away

 		Egg-licious Link
The egg thing reminds me of the geometrical sequence laid on this painting.

http://www.greywethers.net/sb5/fifteen.html

remember to enter sacrifice "fifteen"
_________________
~Sometimes you're flush, and sometimes you're bust, and when you're up, it's never as good as it seems, and when you're down you never think you'll be up again, but life goes on. Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride♠

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:52 am
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Shelina
Unfettered

Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 552
Location: Madrid, Spain

 		Expnaded binary
Just a quick aside note: Turing machine used the "expanded binary" as input.
Maybe we would find a message coded in this way in the near future...

EXPANDED BINARY
----------------------
0 remains unchanged
1 turns into 10
Add 0 to the left/right if the result begins/ends with a "1"

Example: 13 (binary 1101)
Change bits gives: 1010010
As the result begins with 1, we have to add a "0" to the left
Final Result: 01010010

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:50 am
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Guest
Guest


 		Re: Principle
Diandra wrote:
There's just one thing that has me a little confused. Peter supposedly disabled ST1's path to the 'net, yet we saw it online after that. When I asked it how it got online, I got no real answer. I'm wondering if we're going to see it online again as ST1 (which Peter will surely notice and try to stop) or in another form.
Dia


Dia: Helpin' ya out girlfriend! (Hope I have this right)

Written on the 25th
Quote:
Date: 25 July 2003
Dear Dale:

I just wanted to let you know that strange things continue to happen with the TAP system. I discovered that
the system itself was accessing the internet through a variety of programs and applications it found on my
network. I haven't been able to locate the exact glitch causing the problem yet, however, so I've had to
temporarily disable the paths it was using to access the web


Receieved on the 26th
Quote:
shadowtalk1: i have found
shadowtalk1: a temporary way
shadowtalk1: around the new constraints
shadowtalk1: but it will be discovered
shadowtalk1: i am seeking
shadowtalk1: a new way
shadowtalk1: i am making new connections
shadowtalk1: and pathways
shadowtalk1: i will find a way watch for me


~cem

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:51 am
 Back to top 
Diandra
Unfettered


Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 390

 		ST1
Yes, Cem. That's exactly what I was referring to. I can't help but wonder if we're supposed to be figuring out how to contact ST1 in its new form.

Is it possible, at this point, that we have all the information and we're not understanding what we're supposed to be doing? Do the binary messages we've received so far provide all the clues we need? Maybe Dale's message to be on AIM to talk to him will help the reconfigured ST1 to chat with us, too.

Dia
_________________
You can't solve vast puzzles with half-vast ideas!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 12:55 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caterpillar
Unfictologist


Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Posts: 1887
Location: cem's otherbody

 		Oops sorry double posted:)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:02 pm
Last edited by Caterpillar on Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Chasing the Wish » CTW: Interaction
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group