Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 1) 335

Why not? This is the best possible case.

The argument in the original article is that a Touring Machine is limited by the data available to it (even if that data is infinite). This means that the TM can't make a "judgment" because it will always find the same result based on the data provided by the programmer.

QM based randomness means that "new" data is added to the system and the system must now accommodate this new and unpredictable scenario. It is the ability to analyze "new" data that allows for judgment.

Comment Re:Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 1) 335

Computers spend a LOT of power to eliminate the randomness. In-fact randomness is defined as an "error" in the typical computer and generally frowned on by the end user.

In addition we are talking about a Touring Machine which is a thought experiment and therefore not really subject to the laws of the universe..

Comment Re:Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 1) 335

Actually no, I am stating that the human brain is NOT a Turing Machine and can never be a Turing machine therefore any attempt to correlate the original article with "human judgment" is fallacious.

I did say that while I don't know for sure, the ability to integrate and question the randomness inherent in the Universe COULD provide a method of providing a truly independent judgment.

To answer your questions:

No, if you feed a human being the same information twice you often will NOT get the same response even when the person has no ability to remember (say through brain damage). For a fun image think of the movie "50 first dates". Now obviously the simpler the question the more likely you will get the same response, however when you have complex questions you start to get divergent answers. Agreed they do tend to be similar but not identical.

Remember the randomness affects everything and will end up having a large number of effects that will average out to an apparent deterministic system unless tested carefully.

Comment Re:Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 2) 335

My original post was simply pointing out that the human brain is NOT and can never be a Turing machine due to the fundamental randomness of the universe. This means that no study of Turing Machines can make any claim on human judgment calls.

I am not sure the random nature of the universe is sufficient to allow for true 'judgement' but it MIGHT.

Comment Re:Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 1) 335


I know wikipedia but I am lazy and don't really care...

Check out "During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wavefunction into another, later wavefunction is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[28][29]"

There are two cited references.

A large number of quantum particles seem to act in a deterministic way but this is simple the law of large numbers.

Comment Quantum Mechanics and Determinism (Score 1) 335

The problem with Turing machines is that they are by definition a deterministic system. A certain input will give a specific output. That is why they can't make a "judgment" call.

The universe as a whole is NOT deterministic as Quantum Mechanics proves. QM is based on true randomness (obvious a simplification but go with it for this conversation). Our 'machines' deal with this randomness and even incorporate it into some operations. So a specific input will NOT always generate the same response.

It is the assessment of random changes that MIGHT give us the ability to make these sorts of judgments....

Comment Re:Keystone Pipline (Score 1) 1030

As I mentioned in my original post, MOST of the value comes from legal protection and eminent domain land purchases.

For example, Bush's Energy law included a provision that prevents anyone from suing gas station owners from leaks that have contaminated local communities. This one provision is worth hundreds of billions and doesn't show up on the federal budget.

Most of the direct benefit actually comes from tax breaks which don't show in the budget.

Most of the real cost is not directly related to DIRECT subsidies. Most of the benefit comes from repairing the damage these energy sources do to health and environment. Look at how much the EPA spends to clean up oil related environmental damage.

Next, the federal government is not the ONLY source of subsidies. States provide roughly equivalent subsidies.

Finally, you say my number is crazy??? The EU countries also subsidize oil but no where near as much since they also tax the final product... The EU fuel cost is around $9 a gallon...

Comment Re:Why subsidize? (Score 1) 1030

We should be encouraging:

1. Thorium nuclear - Difficult to weaponize, readily available fuel, reduced waste, economically viable in smaller reactor sizes
2. Other Nuclear - Regional fuel access, proliferation issues
3. Solar - Can use "dead" space (like rooftops) which reduces NIMBY issues
4. Wind - more limited in location and NIMBY issues

Comment Keystone Pipline (Score 2) 1030

Umm, what about the Keystone XL Pipeline... That single project is receiving between 1 and 1.8 BILLION dollars in subsidies.

For reference ALL renewable received $5.93 billion.. over a 15 year period...

Plus the real benefit that oil, coal and natural gas receive are liability protection from spills, poisoning etc plus eminent domain lad purchases for pipelines etc.

These issues are not represented in the typical accounting of subsidies and easily doubles the value.

I remember reading that is all benefits were removed from oil than the price of gas would be between 12-15 dollars a gallon!

Slashdot Top Deals

The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair". -- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"