(All my published ideas are just my personal thoughts always open to criticism. But I reserve the right to not to respond.)
I think all great scientific and technological accomplishments should bring awards for people who did it, even after their death.
I think all kinds of computer software are equivalent to machines, just as any kind of machine is equivalent to a machine, also.
So software patents should be treated as designs of machines.
Just as any mechanical and/or electronic (and/or biologic) machine design would need to be creative enough to be non-obvious to an expert in the field same rule also should apply for software patents.
(But living creatures must not be legally counted as biological machines ever.)
Anything published on the internet should have the rights provided by the website published.
The creator of the work should be assumed to be accepted them.
If a website changes the rights then new rules should apply only to newer publishments (not to olders; not to re-publishments).
The original owners of works should have option to make them more public, but no less public.
20170415
BIG BANG
Universe maybe started not from a singularity (of infinite density?) nor a quantum fluctuation (how it can happen where even spacetime does not exists?)
but instead started from some kind of cosmic egg that contained three different kinds of energy that do not interact (and destroy each other):
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Normal (positive) Energy.
And Dark Energy created (and still creating) spacetime, Dark Matter created the cosmic web, Normal (positive) Energy created matter, stars, galaxies which coalesced on the cosmic web.
but instead started from some kind of cosmic egg that contained three different kinds of energy that do not interact (and destroy each other):
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Normal (positive) Energy.
And Dark Energy created (and still creating) spacetime, Dark Matter created the cosmic web, Normal (positive) Energy created matter, stars, galaxies which coalesced on the cosmic web.
FREE WILL EXISTS OR NOT
Clearly concepts of free will, mind (or consciousness), human-like AI are closely related.
I think mind could be explained as mental machinery/tools selected/manipulated by free will (if exists).
But free will really exists or it is just an illusion?
I think creating human-like AI requires creating a mind and creating a mind requires creating free will.
But I don't think randomness coming from quantum mechanics and/or determinism coming from relativity can really explain free will (assuming it really exists).
I think proving free will exists maybe impossible but disproving it is definitely possible.
If we can create a human-like AI someday (that passes Turing test and all similar tests we can think of)
(whether by keep advancing today's AI systems (bottom-up approach) or analyzing a human brain and creating a computer simulation of it (top-down approach))
that would definitely disprove free will (by showing it is just an illusion).
But if that never happens and somehow becomes clear that it never will be no matter how advanced science and technology get,
I think only then we could conclude free will must really exists.
(But then it would also mean free will is created by something beyond the laws of physics of our universe.)
I think mind could be explained as mental machinery/tools selected/manipulated by free will (if exists).
But free will really exists or it is just an illusion?
I think creating human-like AI requires creating a mind and creating a mind requires creating free will.
But I don't think randomness coming from quantum mechanics and/or determinism coming from relativity can really explain free will (assuming it really exists).
I think proving free will exists maybe impossible but disproving it is definitely possible.
If we can create a human-like AI someday (that passes Turing test and all similar tests we can think of)
(whether by keep advancing today's AI systems (bottom-up approach) or analyzing a human brain and creating a computer simulation of it (top-down approach))
that would definitely disprove free will (by showing it is just an illusion).
But if that never happens and somehow becomes clear that it never will be no matter how advanced science and technology get,
I think only then we could conclude free will must really exists.
(But then it would also mean free will is created by something beyond the laws of physics of our universe.)
20170409
Logical Fallacies must be a High School class
If we look at history of humankind since the beginning, there are so many examples of bad people (like dictators and demagogues) rising to power and manipulating masses to do bad things and causing big damage by using logical fallacies.
I have no doubt it also happens a lot everyday in smaller scales like in companies, schools, hospitals, stores, even in families.
Advertising industry also makes use of logical fallacies a lot.
Sometimes they used intentionally to manipulate people and sometimes it is just because no one with a good understanding of logical fallacies is around.
I think there are many more kinds of logical fallacies than most people realize.
(Of course many are just modified versions of some basic types.)
Each type of logical fallacy is like a software bug of human mind waiting to be exploited, just like software bugs in computers are used by viruses to take control and spread.
Also I think explaining logical fallacies to adults is never an easy task.
That is why I think logical fallacies must become a separate full time high school class, at least.
Of course starting to teach them even earlier would be much better.
K-12 students should come across testing for each and every kind of logical fallacy again and again with different examples until they have a good understanding of them all.
This is something extremely important for future of humankind!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I have no doubt it also happens a lot everyday in smaller scales like in companies, schools, hospitals, stores, even in families.
Advertising industry also makes use of logical fallacies a lot.
Sometimes they used intentionally to manipulate people and sometimes it is just because no one with a good understanding of logical fallacies is around.
I think there are many more kinds of logical fallacies than most people realize.
(Of course many are just modified versions of some basic types.)
Each type of logical fallacy is like a software bug of human mind waiting to be exploited, just like software bugs in computers are used by viruses to take control and spread.
Also I think explaining logical fallacies to adults is never an easy task.
That is why I think logical fallacies must become a separate full time high school class, at least.
Of course starting to teach them even earlier would be much better.
K-12 students should come across testing for each and every kind of logical fallacy again and again with different examples until they have a good understanding of them all.
This is something extremely important for future of humankind!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
20170405
Ultimate Space Telescope
I think it is obvious that keep building bigger and bigger space telescopes one at a time for (exponentially) higher and higher costs is not ideal for long term future of astronomy.
Then what is the best solution?
I think it must be using a modular design that allows easy expansion; linearly, instead of exponentially.
Imagine a space telescope made of completely independent hexagonal prism shaped units.
Imagine each hexagonal prism unit also allows easy attachment to another copy from any of its 6 sides.
Imagine the first unit sent to space and so we already have a working telescope.
Then we send another copy and it is attached to the first one (using a drone robot?).
Then we send another copy and another and so on and our telescope keep getting bigger and bigger.
The cost would indeed increase linearly obviously.
(Actually cost of each copy should come down over time.)
Also a big advantage of such a telescope would be much easier and cheaper repairs, compared to a similar size single telescope.
But of course a group of small telescopes attached together would not automatically mean they would be equivalent to a large single telescope.
For that what is called "Aperture synthesis" can be used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis).
Or another solution could be making each unit a "Planar Fourier capture array" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_Fourier_capture_array).
Then what is the best solution?
I think it must be using a modular design that allows easy expansion; linearly, instead of exponentially.
Imagine a space telescope made of completely independent hexagonal prism shaped units.
Imagine each hexagonal prism unit also allows easy attachment to another copy from any of its 6 sides.
Imagine the first unit sent to space and so we already have a working telescope.
Then we send another copy and it is attached to the first one (using a drone robot?).
Then we send another copy and another and so on and our telescope keep getting bigger and bigger.
The cost would indeed increase linearly obviously.
(Actually cost of each copy should come down over time.)
Also a big advantage of such a telescope would be much easier and cheaper repairs, compared to a similar size single telescope.
But of course a group of small telescopes attached together would not automatically mean they would be equivalent to a large single telescope.
For that what is called "Aperture synthesis" can be used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis).
Or another solution could be making each unit a "Planar Fourier capture array" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_Fourier_capture_array).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)