Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

your laptop will be ten million times faster in 15 years: Human life, the next generation, Raymond Kurzweil, The New Scientist 2005.09.24; also his 1993 book, The 10% Solution For a Healthy Life: Murray 2005.10.30

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rich Murray - 30 Oct 2005 09:45 GMT
*************************************************************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1239
your laptop will be ten million times faster in 15 years: Human life, the
next generation, Raymond Kurzweil, The New Scientist 2005.09.24;
also his 1993 book, The 10% Solution For a Healthy Life: Murray
2005.10.30

[ Comments by Rich Murray:

Your laptop will be ten million times faster in 15 years for the same price,
according to the reasonable, informed estimate by Raymond Kurzweil.

That's 23 doublings of computer speed in 15 years.
My own new computers grew in speed
from 75 MHz in 1996 to 1400 MHz in 2001,
19 times faster in 5 years, for about half the price in constant dollars,
giving about 5 doublings of speed for the same price.
Simultaneously my hard drive grew from 360 MB to 110,000 MB,
RAM from 8 MB to 512 MB,
Internet connection speed from 14.4 KB to 4,000 KB,
operating system from DOS to Windows XP,
and number of world Internet users now about a 1,000 million.

The success of Kurzweil's even more more optimistic prophecy will lie in
multiple interlocking innovations:

molecular size circuits connected at light speed with optical signals,
multi-value logic (not just the simple binary code so far used),
quantum mechanical logic based on "qubits", instead of bits,
parallel processing using arrays of thousands to millions of ultra-small
computer chips,
far more sophisticated software, capable of learning and evolving and
originality,
ultra-fast world Internet that makes all literature and research and media
and software available up-to-date for free,
and all human beings provided as innate rights with housing, community,
healthy and safe food and drink, pure environment, electricity, unlimited
and self-controlled education, uncensored communication, medical care,
freedom of travel and migration, democracy at all levels, elimination of
war, meaningful employment and service, leisure, equal opportunity,
universal equitable law, freedom and support for exploring expanded
awareness, vastly increased capabilities of mind.

The result will be a huge increase in the number of positive innovators like
Kurzweil, who take joy in creatively increasing the good.

The only practical, feasible goal is glory.

What we agree to choose for everyone will be ours.

We choose to evolve from the Golden Rule to the Glory Rule:
Everyone chooses to positively, actively give their best to everyone. ]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/     Raymond Kurzweil

http://www.singularity.com/    The Singularity is Near

http://www.singularity.com/    articles on The Singularity

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=10  entire book for free

The 10% Solution For a Healthy Life [ how he healed his diabetes II ]
1993 book by Ray Kurzweil on how to virtually eliminate all risk of heart
disease, cancer and other life-threatening diseases -- and lose weight in
the process. [ reduce fats to 10% of calories and walk 45 minutes daily ]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18725181.600

Human life: The next generation  24 September 2005
www.NewScientist.com   news service
Ray Kurzweil

Graphs: Growth of order and complexity

Exponential growth of computing

History of the future

Exponential growth in internet hosts

Exponential growth of genetic information

Mass use of inventions

IN 2003, Time magazine organised a "Future of Life" conference celebrating
the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of
DNA.
All the speakers -- myself included -- were asked what we thought the next
50 years would bring.
Most of the predictions were short-sighted.

James Watson's own prediction was that in 50 years,
we'll have drugs that allow us to eat as much as we want without gaining
weight. "Fifty years?," I replied.
In my opinion that's far too pessimistic.
We've already demonstrated it in mice, and human drugs using the relevant
techniques are in development.
We can expect them in five to 10 years, not 50.

The mistake that Watson and virtually every other presenter made was to use
the progress of the past 50 years as a model for the next half-century.
I describe this way of looking at the future as the "intuitive linear" view:
people intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue
for future periods.

But a serious assessment of the history of technology reveals that
technological change is not linear, but exponential.
You can examine the data in different ways, on different timescales and for
a wide variety of technologies, ranging from electronic to biological.
You can analyse the implications, ranging from the sum of human knowledge to
the size of the economy.
However you measure it, the exponential acceleration of progress and growth
applies.

Understanding exponential progress is key to understanding future trends.
Over the long term, exponential growth produces change on a scale
dramatically different from linear growth.
Consider that in 1990, the human genome project was widely regarded as
controversial.
In 1989, we sequenced only one-thousandth of the genome.
But from 1990 onwards the amount of genetic data sequenced doubled every
year -- a rate of growth that continues today -- and the transcription of
the human genome was completed in 2003.

We are making exponential progress in every type of information technology.
Moreover, virtually all technologies are becoming information technologies.
If we combine all of these trends, we can reliably predict that, in the not
too distant future, we will reach what is known as The Singularity.
This is a time when the pace of technological change will be so rapid and
its impact so deep that human life will be irreversibly transformed.
We will be able to reprogram our biology, and ultimately transcend it.
The result will be an intimate merger between ourselves and the technology
we are creating.

The evidence for this ubiquitous exponential growth is abundant.
In my new book, The Singularity is Near,
I have more than 40 graphs from a broad variety of fields,
including communications, the internet, brain scanning and biological
technologies, that reveal exponential progress.

Broadly speaking, my models show that we are doubling the paradigm-shift
rate (roughly, the rate of technical innovation) every decade.
Throughout the 20th century, the rate of progress gradually picked up speed.
By the end of the century the rate was such that the sum total of the
century's achievements was equivalent to about 20 years of progress at the
2000 rate.

Growth in information technology is particularly rapid:
we're doubling its power, as measured by price-performance, bandwidth,
capacity and many other measures, every year or so.

That's a factor of a thousand in 10 years, a million in 20 years, and a
billion in 30 years, although a slow, second level of exponential growth
means
that a billion-fold improvement takes only about a quarter of a century.

The exponential growth of computing goes back over a century and covers five
major paradigms:
electromechanical computing as used in the 1890 US census,
relay-based computing as used to crack Nazi cryptography in the early 1940s,
vacuum-tube-based computing as used by CBS to predict the election of
Dwight Eisenhower in 1952,
discrete-transistor-based computing as used in the first space launches in
the early 1960s,
and finally computing based on integrated circuits, invented in 1958 and
applied to mainstream computing from the late 1960s.

Each time it became apparent that one paradigm was about to run out of
steam,
this realisation resulted in research pressure to create the next paradigm.

Today we have over a decade left in the paradigm of shrinking transistors on
an integrated circuit,
but there has already been enormous progress in creating the sixth major
computing paradigm of three-dimensional molecular computing,
using carbon nanotubes for example.

And electronics is just one example of many.
As another, it took us 14 years to sequence the genome of HIV;
SARS took only 31 days.

Accelerating returns

The result is that we can reliably predict such measures as
price-performance and capacity of a broad variety of information
technologies.
There are, of course, many things that we cannot dependably anticipate.
In fact, our inability to make reliable predictions applies to any specific
project. But the overall capabilities of information technology in each
field can be projected.
And I say this not just with hindsight;
I have been making forward-looking predictions of this type for more than 20
years.

We see examples in other areas of science of very smooth and reliable
outcomes resulting from the interaction of a great many unpredictable
events. Consider that predicting the path of a single molecule in a gas is
essentially impossible,
but predicting the properties of the entire gas -- comprised of a great many
chaotically interacting molecules -- can be done very reliably through the
laws of thermodynamics.
Analogously, it is not possible to reliably predict the results of a
specific project or company,
but the overall capabilities of information technology, comprised of many
chaotic activities, can nonetheless be dependably anticipated
through what I call "the law of accelerating returns".

So what does the law of accelerating returns tell us about the future?
In terms of the aforementioned paradigm-shift rate,
between 2000 and 2014 we'll make 20 years of progress at 2000 rates,
equivalent to the entire 20th century.
And then we'll do the same again in only seven years.
To express this another way, we won't experience 100 years of technological
advance in the 21st century;
we will witness in the order of 20,000 years of progress when measured by
the rate of progress in 2000,
or about 1000 times that achieved in the 20th century.

Above all, information technologies will grow at an explosive rate.
And information technology is the technology that we need to consider.
Ultimately everything of value will become an information technology:
our biology, our thoughts and thinking processes, manufacturing and many
other fields.
As one example, nanotechnology-based manufacturing will enable us to apply
computerised techniques to automatically assemble complex products at the
molecular level.
This will mean that by the mid-2020s we will be able to meet our energy
needs using very inexpensive nanotechnology-based solar panels that will
capture the energy in 0.03 per cent of the sunlight that falls on the Earth,
which is all we need to meet our projected energy needs in 2030.

A common objection is that there must be limits to exponential growth, as in
the example of rabbits in Australia.
The answer is that there are, but they're not very limiting. By 2020, $1000
will purchase 10E16 calculations per second (cps) of computing (compared
with about 10E9 cps today), which is the level I estimate is required to
functionally simulate the human brain.

Another few decades on, and we will be able to build more optimal computing
systems.
For example, one cubic inch of nanotube circuitry would be about 100 million
times more powerful than the human brain.

The ultimate 1-kilogram computer -- about the weight of a laptop today --
which I envision late in this century,
could provide 10E42 cps, about 10 quadrillion (10E16) times more powerful
than all human brains put together today.

And that's if we restrict the computer to functioning at a cold temperature.
If we find a way to let it get hot, we could improve that by a factor of
another 100 million.
And of course, we'll devote more than 1 kilogram of matter to computing.
Ultimately, we'll use a significant portion of the matter and energy in our
vicinity as a computing substrate.

Our growing mastery of information processes means that the 21st century
will be characterised by three great technology revolutions.
We are in the early stages of the "G" revolution (genetics, or
biotechnology) right now.
Biotechnology is providing the means to actually change your genes:
not just designer babies but designer baby boomers.

One technology that is already here is RNA interference (RNAi), which is
used to turn genes off by blocking messenger RNA from expressing specific
genes. Each human gene is just one of 23,000 little software programs we
have inherited that represent the design of our biology.
It is not very often that we use software programs that are not upgraded and
modified for several years, let alone thousands of years.
Yet these genetic programs evolved tens of thousands of years ago when
conditions were very different.
For one thing, it was not in the interest of the species for people to live
very long.
But since viral diseases, cancer and many other diseases depend on gene
expression at some crucial point in their life cycle, RNAi promises to be a
breakthrough technology.

Grow your own

New means of adding new genes are also emerging that have overcome the
problem of placing genetic information precisely.
One successful technique is to add the genetic information in vitro, making
it possible to ensure the genetic information is inserted in the proper
place.
Once verified, the modified cell can be reproduced in vitro and large
numbers of modified cells introduced into the patient's bloodstream,
where they will travel to and become embedded in the correct tissues.
This approach to gene therapy has successfully cured pulmonary hypertension
in rats and has been approved for human trials.

Another important line of attack is to regrow our own cells, tissues and
even whole organs, and introduce them into our bodies.
One major benefit of this "therapeutic cloning" technique is that we will be
able to create these new tissues and organs from versions of our cells that
have also been made younger -- the emerging field of rejuvenation medicine.
For example, we will be able to create new heart cells from your skin cells
and introduce them into your system through the bloodstream.
Over time, your heart cells will all be replaced, resulting in a rejuvenated
"young" heart with your own DNA.

Drug discovery was once a matter of finding substances that produced some
beneficial effect without excessive side effects.
This process was similar to early humans' tool discovery, which was limited
to simply finding rocks and natural implements that could be used for
helpful purposes.
Today, we are learning the precise biochemical pathways that underlie both
disease and ageing processes,
and are able to design drugs to carry out precise missions at the molecular
level. The scope and scale of these efforts are vast.

But perfecting our biology will only get us so far.
The reality is that biology will never be able to match what we will be
capable of engineering, now that we are gaining a deep understanding of
biology's principles of operation.

That will bring us to the "N" or nanotechnology revolution, which will
achieve maturity in the 2020s.
There are already early impressive experiments. A biped nanorobot created by
Nadrian Seeman and William Sherman of New York University can walk on
legs just 10 nanometres long,
demonstrating the ability of nanoscale machines to execute precise
manoeuvres. MicroCHIPS of Bedford, Massachusetts, has developed a
computerised device that is implanted under the skin and delivers precise
mixtures of medicines from hundreds of nanoscale wells inside it. There are
many other examples.

Version 2.0

By the 2020s, nanotechnology will enable us to create almost any physical
product we want from inexpensive materials, using information processes.
We will be able to go beyond the limits of biology, and replace your current
"human body version 1.0" with a dramatically upgraded version 2.0,
providing radical life extension.
The "killer app" of nanotechnology is "nanobots", blood-cell sized robots
that can travel in the bloodstream destroying pathogens, removing debris,
correcting errors in DNA and reversing ageing processes.

We're already in the early stages of augmenting and replacing each of our
organs,
even portions of our brains with neural implants,
the most recent versions of which allow patients to download new software to
their implants from outside their bodies.
Each of our organs will ultimately be replaced.
For example, nanobots could deliver to our bloodstream an optimal set of all
the nutrients, hormones and other substances we need, as well as remove
toxins and waste products.
The gastrointestinal tract could then be reserved for culinary pleasures
rather than the tedious biological function of providing nutrients.
After all, we've already in some ways separated the communication and
pleasurable aspects of sex from its biological function.

The most profound transformation will be "R" for the robotics revolution,
which really refers to "strong" AI, or artificial intelligence at the human
level (see "Reverse engineering the human brain").
Hundreds of applications of "narrow AI" -- machine intelligence that equals
or exceeds human intelligence for specific tasks -- already permeate our
modern infrastructure.
Every time you send an email or make a cellphone call, intelligent
algorithms route the information.
AI programs diagnose electrocardiograms with an accuracy rivalling doctors,
evaluate medical images, fly and land aircraft, guide intelligent autonomous
weapons, make automated investment decisions for over a trillion dollars of
funds, and guide industrial processes.
A couple of decades ago these were all research projects.

With regard to strong AI, we'll have both the hardware and software to
recreate human intelligence by the end of the 2020s.
We'll be able to improve these methods and harness the speed, memory
capabilities and knowledge-sharing ability of machines.

Ultimately, we will merge with our technology.
This will begin with nanobots in our bodies and brains.
The nanobots will keep us healthy, provide full-immersion virtual reality
from within the nervous system, provide direct brain-to-brain communication
over the internet and greatly expand human intelligence.

But keep in mind that non-biological intelligence is doubling in capability
each year, whereas our biological intelligence is essentially fixed.
As we get to the 2030s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will
predominate.
By the mid 2040s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will be
billions of times more capable than the biological portion.
Non-biological intelligence will have access to its own design and will be
able to improve itself in an increasingly rapid redesign cycle.

This is not a utopian vision: the GNR technologies each have perils to match
their promise. The danger of a bioengineered pathological virus is already
with us. Self-replication will ultimately be feasible in non-biological
nanotechnology-based systems as well, which will introduce its own dangers.
This is a topic for another essay, but in short the answer is not
relinquishment. Any attempt to proscribe such technologies will not only
deprive human society of profound benefits, but will drive these
technologies underground, which would make the dangers worse.

Some commentators have questioned whether we would still be human
after such dramatic changes.
These observers may define the concept of human as being based on our
limitations,
but I prefer to define us as the species that seeks -- and succeeds -- in
going beyond our limitations.
Because our ability to increase our horizons is expanding exponentially
rather than linearly, we can anticipate a dramatic century of accelerating
change ahead.

Reverse engineering the human brain

The most profound transformation will be in "strong" AI, that is, artificial
intelligence at the human level.
To recreate the capabilities of the human brain,
we need to meet both the hardware and software requirements.
Achieving the hardware requirement was controversial five years ago,
but is now largely a mainstream view among informed observers.
Supercomputers are already at 100 trillion (10E14) calculations per second
(cps), and will hit 10E16 cps around the end of this decade,
which is the level I estimate is required to functionally simulate the human
brain.
Several supercomputers with 10E15 cps are already on the drawing board,
with two Japanese efforts targeting 10E16 cps around the end of the decade.
By 2020, 10E16 cps will be available for around $1000.
So now the controversy is focused on the algorithms.

To understand the principles of human intelligence we need to
reverse-engineer the human brain.
Here, progress is far greater than most people realise.
The spatial and temporal resolution of brain scanning is progressing at an
exponential rate, roughly doubling each year.
Scanning tools, such as a new system from the University of Pennsylvania,
can now see individual interneuronal connections, and watch them fire in
real time.
Already, we have mathematical models of a couple of dozen regions of the
brain, including the cerebellum, which comprises more than half the
neurons in the brain.
IBM is creating a highly detailed simulation of about 10,000 cortical
neurons,
including tens of millions of connections.
The first version will simulate electrical activity, and a future version
will also simulate chemical activity.
By the mid 2020s, it is conservative to conclude that we will have effective
models of the whole brain.

There are a number of key ways in which the organisation of the brain
differs from a conventional computer.
The brain's circuits, for example, transmit information as chemical
gradients travelling at only a few hundred metres per second,
which is millions of times slower than electronic circuits.
The brain is massively parallel:
there are about 100 trillion interneuronal connections all computing
simultaneously.
The brain combines analogue and digital phenomena.
The brain rewires itself, and it uses emergent properties,
with intelligent behaviour emerging from the brain's chaotic and complex
activity. But as we gain sufficient data to model neurons and regions of
neurons in detail, we find that we can express the coding of information in
the brain and how this information is transformed in mathematical terms.
We are then able to simulate these transformations on conventional parallel
computing platforms,
even though the underlying hardware architecture is quite different.

One benefit of a full understanding of the human brain will be a deep
understanding of ourselves,
but the key implication is that it will expand the tool kit of techniques we
can apply to create artificial intelligence.
We will then be able to create non-biological systems that match human
intelligence.
These superintelligent computers will be able to do things we are not able
to do, such as share knowledge and skills at electronic speeds.
*************************************************************

Rich Murray, MA  Room For All  rmforall@comcast.net  505-501-2298
1943 Otowi Road    Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505   USA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 145 members, 1,239 posts in a public, searchable archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1238
Let's put aspartame toxicity facts on the table in public debate in The New
Mexican: Paul R. Block, CEO, Merisant Co.: Uleha: Murray 2005.10.26

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1165
short review: research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid)
toxicity: Murray 2005.07.06 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1230
recent research re aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde)
toxicity: Murray 2005.10.14
*************************************************************

http://www.vrg.org/  The Vegetarian Resource Group   vrg@vrg.org

http://www.vegsource.com  extensive vegan information

http://www.drmcdougall.com    practical, delicious healthy diet guidance

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/kradjian_milk.htm
Robert Kradjian MD Discusses Milk

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/971
Joel Fuhrman critique of Atkins diet in "Eat To Live":
Murray 2003.03.01 rmforall

http://www.hyp.ac.uk/cash/index.htm
Consensus Action on Salt and Health

What Rich Murray eats:

Avoid all products with aspartame and MSG.
Substitute stevia (at health food stores).

Gradually reduce alcohol, caffeine (coffee, cocoa, and teas), meat, fish,
eggs, milk, butter, and cheese,  hydrogenated oils, trans fats, white bread,
food additives and colors, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, city
water,
salt and sodium (< 1,000 mg daily).

Enjoy organic rice, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, beans, garlic, tumeric,
with modest use of soy products, nuts, flax seeds, almond butter, sprouted
grain breads, flax seed and olive oils, chili sauce, vitamins and minerals,
4-8 1,000 mg fish oil capsules, 4 400 mcg folic acid tablets (antidote to
methanol and formaldehyde), and fill your jugs with deionized or distilled
water.
*************************************************************
ted rosenberg - 31 Oct 2005 01:41 GMT
> *************************************************************
<snip>

another subject you are clueless about ???

Processor speed is not the same as effective operating speed, the
development of GUI's and sloppy code make SOME aps run slower than they
did on my .5Kh Apple ][+

AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it at
the same time.
mrslang - 31 Oct 2005 02:06 GMT
> AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it at
> the same time.

that's what you get for living in a hippy commune, ted. no wonder
you're so grouchy. lol

peace out

Sally
ted rosenberg - 31 Oct 2005 02:10 GMT
>>AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it at
>>the same time.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Sally

I KNEW there was a reason we shouldn't have put in the high speed paper
take readers <g>
Nico Kadel-Garcia - 31 Oct 2005 13:28 GMT
>> AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it at
>> the same time.
>
> that's what you get for living in a hippy commune, ted. no wonder
> you're so grouchy. lol

They were using it as a space heater, of course.....
ted rosenberg - 31 Oct 2005 17:02 GMT
>>>AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it at
>>>the same time.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> They were using it as a space heater, of course.....

No. we were heating the whole building.  but the IBM 650 had only one
word of RAM, and heated the entire block
Rich Murray - 31 Oct 2005 03:22 GMT
October 30 2005

Hello Ted Rosenberg,

Sounds like you've had a lot more hands on experience with computing than I
have, although I started early as a freshman at MIT in 1960, with
"Introduction to Automatic Computing", writing little programs in BASIC and
FAP to do simple things like sort lists, typing them up as a stack of
punched cards, submitting them to the air conditioned computer temple, and
getting a printout back the next day.

In 1963-4 I wrote my senior thesis on the exponential evolution of
transistor electronics from 1948 to 1964, by which time the first integrated
circuits had appeared, a few years before Gordon Moore mentioned his famous
law about the density of the circuits doubling every 18 months or so.  I was
very concerned that the exponential arms race would doom us all.

In early 1976 I wrote a short story about life in 2076, in which a citizen
could sit at a terminal and join millions of others in joint meditations and
other projects, and every person grew up with and lived lifelong with a
Personal Digital Companion, a small unit that was a fully intelligent friend
and aide.

I got an Atari 400 in early 1980, with 4K RAM, and found it very limited, so
returned it to Sears Roebuck.

In fall, 1982,  I got a $ 150 Timex/Sinclaire, usable with TV and a cassette
recorder, and in a few months wrote a pretty capable 200-line program in
BASIC to compute up to 4 bodies with mass and electric charge, moving in 3D
space, about a 1000 calculation steps per hour, enough to show over 3
orbits --  the solutions would then become chaotic, and when I halved the
time steps and doubled their number to increase accuracy, the chaos always
still set in after 3 orbits, and reversing velocities to go back in time
never restored the initial configuation, either......

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/14
Gerald 't Hooft on inevitably infinitesimal scale turbulent chaos in
incompressible fluids (Navier Stokes equation): insights from 4-body 2D
simulations toward proof of no analytic solutions possible: Murray
2005.09.11

Hello, Gerald 't Hooft,  Wayne Brian Hayes and Daniel Rockmore,

As one of those inevitable laymen with mediocre talents and correspondingly
widespread interests, I thoroughly enjoyed Rockmore's book, which led me
to do a Google on the Riemann Hypothesis, leading in the wee hours after
midnight to the availablity of a $ 1 million prize for an answer, one way or
the other, as to whether complete analytic solutions to the simple
Navier-Stokes equations exist.

The next day or so, it seemed to me the answer is, "No", since for an ideal
incompressible fluid, the turbulence must extend without limit into the
infinitesimal, with the sum total of vortexes at each shrinking distance
scale increasing vastly-- for the volume, by the cube of the number of
turbulent vortexes across the diameter.

This fractile structure of infinitely increasing n-body problems, like a
dynamic "Mandelbrot Set", must elude any possibility of measurement or
description, let alone analytic prediction.
In other words, there is no way to pick out any unique nontrivial initial
configuration-- does this have any bearing on the Axiom of Choice in set
theory?
The least change in the putative initial configuration leads to a uniquely
chaotic, always expanding river of probable trajectories.

For instance, if we halve the time per step of a simple calculation, then we
double the number of steps in the whole interval being modeled, thus
doubling the number of opportunites for errors to magnify, resulting in no
convergence towards any unique outcome.

Now, I exercised my meagre wits in fall, 1982 with a $ 150 Timex-Sinclair
computer, 4K RAM, with a $ 50 16K RAM plug-in, that I secured with rubber
bands, by writing a 200 line program in Basic that could calculate the
4 body problem in 3D.

Mostly, I did 4-body simulations in 2D, taking about an hour to do 1000
steps-- accurate enough to set up the 4 bodies in a diamond formation,
orbiting about their common center of gravity, making a nice circle for 3
orbits, with the velocity, and center of mass errors growing exponentially,
until then one body would curve toward the middle, and its opposite partner
would start sailing outwards, and chaos ruled, even though there were no
close enounters for a while afterwards.

This is the simplest possible model of "turbulence", in which half the
system carries away angular momentum, allowing the other half to orbit with
increased velocities in a tinier system, the core dynamic of vortex flow.

I would then reverse the velocities to reverse the time flow, but the
backwards simulation continued to be chaotic.  The original four square
symmetry is soon inevitably, irrevokably lost.

I was bemused to discover that halving the time step, talking twice as long
to run the model, did not product any convergence, even when I set it up to
run for two weeks, doubling and doubling the overall time, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16,
32, 64, 128 hours, saving the end results for each run in a file.

I conjecture that this lack of convergence can not be overcome by any
mathematics.

Out of the fractile maze of possible infinite configurations, only a very,
very limited infinity of initial configuations can be specified, which then
are obviously "special" cases by the very fact that they have been specified
by some process.

There is no way to limit the proliferating propagation of chaos from
infinitesimal levels of scale to the larger scales.

I conjecture that any attempt to define "causality" for a fluid in the
continuum of the reals will always lead to paradoxes, i.e. contradictions.

Since causality is the central concept of mathematical physics, we are
challenged to ponder the fundamental limitations of this concept.

The fundamental principle of unity mandates that Nature in total operates
only as Nature in total, so that the convenient ideal of an isolated system,
shielded, specificable, measureable, describable, and predictable,
is actually radically inadequate.

In mutual service,  Rich Murray

Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis , (Pantheon) by Dan Rockmore
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Rules_etc/ re $ 1 million prize for 7
deep problems:

" In the case of the P versus NP problem and the Navier-Stokes problem, the
SAB will consider the award of the Millennium Prize for deciding the
question in either direction. "

http://www.claymath.org/ Clay Mathematics Institute

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/Official_Problem_Desc
ription.pdf

2000.05.01

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wayne/Hayes-2-page-cv.pdf
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wayne/research/papers/PRL54104.pdf  2003.02.07
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wayne/research/papers/APJL16857.pdf 2003.03.19
http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne/research/papers/Pomona2004.pdf 2004.06.19

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html  How to become a good
theoretical physicist in your own time

" Viscosity, for incompressible fluids, can be expressed in terms of
cmE2/sec, so the distance scale at which turbulence can take place can be
arbitrarily small, provided that the time scale decreases accordingly.

This is why turbulence can cascade down to very tiny dimensions, until
finally the molecular scale is reached, at which point the fluid equations
no longer apply.

Because of this divergence into the infinitesimally small scales, a viscous
fluid cannot be treated with our Hilbert space methods. "

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9903/9903084.pdf

arXiv:gr-qc/9903084 v3 1 Apr 1999
SPIN-1999/07
gr-qc/9903084
QUANTUM GRAVITY AS A
DISSIPATIVE DETERMINISTIC SYSTEM
Gerard 't Hooft
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of Utrecht, Princetonplein 5
3584 CC Utrecht, the Netherlands
and
Spinoza Institute
Postbox 80.195
3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands
e-mail: g.thooft@phys.uu.nl
internet: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/

Abstract

It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct
attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of
general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the
latter is restored.
The notion of time in GR is so different from the usual one in
elementary particle physics that we believe that certain versions of
hidden variable theories can -- and must -- be revived.
A completely natural procedure is proposed, in which the dissipation
of information plays an essential role.
Unlike earlier attempts, it allows us to use strictly continuous and
differentiable classical field theories as a starting point
(although discrete variables, leading to fermionic degrees of freedom,
are also welcome),
and we show how an effective Hilbert space of quantum states naturally
emerges when one attempts to describe the solutions statistically.
Our theory removes some of the mysteries of the holographic principle;
apparently non-local features are to be expected when the quantum
degrees of freedom of the world are projected onto a lower-dimensional
black hole horizon.
Various examples and models illustrate the points we wish to make,
notably a model showing that massless, non interacting neutrinos are
deterministic.

page 1

[ page 10 ]

5. Viscosity.

To obtain some insight in continuum models with information loss, it
is tempting to consider an example from macroscopic physics.

Consider the Navier-Stokes equations for a fluid with viscosity 11.

For simplicity, we take a pure, incompressible fluid with density
d  equal to one, and viscosity q .

As is well known, such fluids may develop turbulence,
and turbulence occurs when the Reynolds number,

R =  d u L/q                                      (5:1)

where u represents the velocities involved and L the typical sizes,
becomes larger than a certain critical value, Rcr .

This is a dimensionless number, ranging between a few factors
of 10 to something of the order of 10E3 .

Turbulence could be a nice example of the kind of chaotic behaviour to
which one could apply our quantum mechanical philosophy.

We see from the expression (5.1) for Reynold's number, that only if
the viscosity q is sufficiently small compared to the dimensions of
the system, instabilities arise that cause turbulence.

Viscosity, for incompressible fluids, can be expressed in terms of
cmE2/sec, so the distance scale at which turbulence can take place can
be arbitrarily small, provided that the time scale decreases
accordingly.

This is why turbulence can cascade down to very tiny dimensions, until
finally the molecular scale is reached, at which point the fluid
equations no longer apply.

Because of this divergence into the infinitesimally small scales, a
viscous fluid cannot be treated with our Hilbert space methods.

In a relativistic classical field theory, the situation is likely to
be very different.

First of all, it is very difficult to introduce viscosity in a
relativistically invariant way, since first derivatives in time must
be linked to second derivatives in space.

But, assuming that in sufficiently complicated systems, viscous yet
Lorentz invariant terms can be introduced,
one notices that there must be another distinction as well:
if turbulence cascades down to smaller dimensions, it cannot be that
the square of the distance scale divided by the time scale stays
constant, because the limit of the ratio of the distance scale itself
and the time scale is limited by the speed of light.

Therefore, one may imagine that there is a lower limit to vortex size,
and hence a natural smallest distance limit.
It is necessary to have a smallest scale limit so as to have a
workable cut-off leading to an effective quantization.

Unfortunately, realistic relativistic classical eld theories with
viscosity were not (yet?) found, which is why perhaps information loss
via black holes must be called upon.

page 11

6. The EPR paradox. A falsifiable prediction

The most serious objection usually raised against ideas of the kind
discussed in this paper, is that deterministic theories underlying
quantum mechanics appear to imply Bell's inequalities for stochastic
phenomena 12, whereas it is well-known that many of these inequalities
are violated in quantum mechanics.

Clearly, we have to address these objections.
Bell's inequalities follow if one assumes deterministic equations of
motion to be responsible for the behaviour of quantum mechanical
particles at large scales.
If one assumes that the x-component of an electron's spin exists,
having some (unknown) value even while the z -component is measured,
then the usual clashes are found.

In our theory, however,
the wave function has exactly the meaning and interpretation as in
usual quantum mechanics;
it describes the probability that something will or will not happen,
given all other information of the system available to us.

"Reality", as we perceive it, does not refer to the question whether
an electron went through one slit or another.

It is our belief that the true degrees of freedom are not describing
electrons or any other particles at all, but microscopic variables at
scales comparable to the Planck scale.

Their fluctuations are chaotic,
and no deterministic equation exists at all that describes the effects
of these fluctuations at large scales.

Thus, the behaviour of the things we call electrons and photons is
essentially entirely unpredictable.
It so happens, however, that some regularities occur within all these
stochastic osscillations, and the only way to describe these
regularities is by making use of Hilbert space techniques.

When we measure the spin of a photon, or the detection rate of
particles by a counter,
our measuring device is as much a chaotic object as the phenomena
measured,
and only at macroscopic scales can we detect statistical regularities
that can in no other way be linked to microscopic behaviour than by
assuming Schrodinger's equation.

The idea that there might exist a deterministic law of physics
underlying all of this essentially amounts to nothing more than the
suggestion that there exists a `primordial basis', a preferred basis
of states in Hilbert space with the property that any operator that
happens to be diagonal in this basis,
will continue to be diagonal during the evolution of the system.

None of the operators describing present-day atomic and subatomic
physics will be completely diagonal in this basis.

This enables us to accept both quantum mechanics with its usual
interpretation and to assume that there is a deterministic physical
theory lying underneath it.

Apparently, we are forced to deny the existence of electrons, and
other microscopic objects,
even if they appear to be obvious explanations of observed phenomena.

Only macroscopic oscillations, such as the movements of planets and
people, are undeniable realities (that is, approximately diagonal in
the primordial basis), and it must be possible to recognise these
`realities' in terms of the microscopic, deterministic variables.

This leads once again to a very serious objection, which is the following.

Quantum mechanics, as we know it,
leads to many more phenomena that are at odds with classical
determininistic descriptions.
*************************************************************

>> *************************************************************
> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it
> at  the same time.
Blash - 31 Oct 2005 04:22 GMT
I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
find it......

> October 30 2005
>
[quoted text clipped - 352 lines]
>> AND, I once had a PDP8e with 4 K of RAM which had 12 people using  it
>> at  the same time.
J.C. Hartmann - 31 Oct 2005 04:56 GMT
> I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
> find it......
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>punched cards, submitting them to the air conditioned computer temple, and
>>getting a printout back the next day.

It should be no surprise that he takes great liberties with the truth,
even with matters not related to his favorite subject to lie about...
aspartame. Pathological liar seems to fit.

In 1964, while visiting Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, for a
pre-admission interview, I was introduced to two guys named John Kemeny
and Tom Kurtzas, who had invented BASIC the previous year. So I find it
hard to believe that Rich Murray was progamming in BASIC at MIT three
years before the language was created. Why am I not surprised?

As to why he posted this new crap? It gave him an opportunity to quote
his own 17KB of aspartame bullshit again, despite his promise to limit
his bullshit to a mere 10K. Lies, lies, lies.

Jim
Rich Murray - 31 Oct 2005 05:29 GMT
October 30 2005  Hello Jim,

Yep, it couldn't have been BASIC in 1960.  I must have picked up a bit of
BASIC playing with the TRS-80 at Radio Shack in summer, 1977.

My memory suggests that FAP was the first language I learned, and then a
little FORTRAN, in fall, 1960 -- but I'm not sure of these details, and I
seem to have somehow misplaced my class notes and homework... anyway, Jim,
not enough to cry, "Crucify him!" about.....    Uh, Jim, my 17 KB post, a
reasonable attempt by an oldie but moldie to reassure his fellows that I'm
just an nerd gone hippie gone to right now, didn't mention aspartame....
Geeeee, you guys are so touchy! Whatchasonervousbout?

Rich

http://www.infotechloco.com/Inf-Computer-Topics-D---G/Fortran-programming-langua
ge.html


"FORTRAN Assembly history of fortran computer programming language Program
(FAP) was a macro assembler for the IBM 709, 7090, and 7094 computers of the
1950s and 60s."

>> I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
>> find it......
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Jim
ted rosenberg - 31 Oct 2005 16:59 GMT
More crap - not FORTRAN in fall 1960.

> October 30 2005  Hello Jim,
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Rich
> <snip>

>>As to why he posted this new crap? It gave him an opportunity to quote his
>>own 17KB of aspartame bullshit again, despite his promise to limit his
>>bullshit to a mere 10K. Lies, lies, lies.
>>
>>Jim
ted rosenberg - 31 Oct 2005 21:44 GMT
> More crap - not FORTRAN in fall 1960.

Correction, I am wrong, FORTRAN existed pre 1962, but was not in general
use outside of IBM's labs

>> October 30 2005  Hello Jim,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>>
>>> Jim
matt weber - 01 Nov 2005 01:19 GMT
>> I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
>> find it......
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>hard to believe that Rich Murray was progamming in BASIC at MIT three
>years before the language was created. Why am I not surprised?
.As someone intimately familiar with the GE product line, and the
relationship with Dartmouth in that era, BASIC probably became
available at MIT about 1967 as part of the Project MAC/MULTICS
exercise.

 BASIC was developed to run on General Electric  Computer Hardware
(200 series) initially , in fact it was a commercial product with GE
Timesharing by the end of 1966 on the GE 265 platform (which is
actually two computers, but that's another story). Following that, it
was also ported on to the GE 635 (which was actually a far better host
for it), and became GE Mark II Time Sharing which is actually the
commercial version of DTSS (Dartmouth Time Sharing system).

GE Information Systems Division (now Honeywell) in Phoenix did the
port to the 400 and 600 series processor in the 1966-67 time frame.

It was available as part of dedicated Time Sharing systems on the 200
and 400 line systems, and as part of '3-D' system (Time Sharing, local
Batch, and remote batch all on the same machine at the same time)  on
the GE-600 line . General Electric Information System Sales and
Service (generally referred to as Ice cubes, I S^3) sold it  . It is
probably on the 600 line system  in some form in 1967. I know it was
part of GECOS III commercial releases in 1968.

 Most of the 600 line software could easily be ported to the 645
Multics Platform, and just about all of it was.  BASIC was very much
in line with the Project MAC goals of greatly simplifying the man
machine interface. There is a GE 635  to support development for the
645 at MIT from 1964, and the 645 is on site in early 1967, and is
self hosting about 18 months later. The 645 is one of the first true
virtual memory system. It is a 635 with virtual memory hardware (both
paging and segments).

The Paging device was the Librafile aka 'the firehouse drum', which
in the late 1960's had a mind boggling transfer rate of 2+ million
bytes per seconds. The Virtual address space was 36 bits, which was
addressed in 36 bit increments, so the actual virtual address space
was 38 bits. about 256 GB.

. It is very likely that BASIC was available on the Multics (GE645)
platform in 1968, it is imporobable that it would have been available
more than a year or two earlier than that.

The better question is perhaps  was Rick Murray really at MIT in that
era......

>As to why he posted this new crap? It gave him an opportunity to quote
>his own 17KB of aspartame bullshit again, despite his promise to limit
>his bullshit to a mere 10K. Lies, lies, lies.
>
>Jim
ted rosenberg - 01 Nov 2005 02:23 GMT
>>>I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
>>>find it......
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>>>punched cards, submitting them to the air conditioned computer temple, and
>>>>getting a printout back the next day.

<snip>

> The better question is perhaps  was Rick Murray really at MIT in that
> era......
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>>Jim

At MIT, in 1960 they were using IBM equipment.  Later Project MAC was
using what became the DEC PDP1 / LINC 1 but I think that started more
likr 63-64
Wes Groleau - 31 Oct 2005 05:46 GMT
> I know there must be something relative to diabetes in here, but I can't
> find it......

So you re-posted it for the rest of us to help you look?

Hint:

... is ample clue the rest of it is a waste of bandwidth.

Signature

Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

Rich Murray - 31 Oct 2005 18:58 GMT
"...all human beings provided as innate rights with housing, community,
healthy and safe food and drink, pure environment, electricity, unlimited
and self-controlled education, uncensored communication, medical care,
freedom of travel and migration, democracy at all levels, elimination of
war, meaningful employment and service, leisure, equal opportunity,
universal equitable law, freedom and support for exploring expanded
awareness, vastly increased capabilities of mind.

The result will be a huge increase in the number of positive innovators like
Kurzweil, who take joy in creatively increasing the good.

The only practical, feasible goal is glory.

What we agree to choose for everyone will be ours.

We choose to evolve from the Golden Rule to the Glory Rule:
Everyone chooses to positively, actively give their best to everyone..."

In our present era of exponentially evolving opportunities, let all of us
who naturally have to join together to focus on particular problems remain
open to the dazzlingly positive wider picture of stupendous progress on all
fronts.

It will soon be a universally accepted truism that diabetes and all diseases
will be prevented by healthy and safe food and drink, elimination of toxins,
and designer drugs specifically targeted at deficient biochemical systems
that result from many
inherited mutations.

Support groups will evolve towards creative, civil  collaboration with a
wide range of both lay and professional experts to rapidly explore these
desirable possibilities.

In mutual service,  Rich Murray
**************************************************************

Any unsuspected source of methanol, which the body always quickly and
largely turns into formaldehyde and then formic acid, must be monitored,
especially for high responsibility occupations, often with night shifts,
such as pilots and nuclear reactor operators.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1237
ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are
formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources, including
from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins in fruits and
vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2005.10.26

As a medical layman, I suggest that evidence mandates immediate exploration
of the role of these ubiquitious, potent formaldehyde sources as co-factors
in epidemiology, research, diagnosis, and treatment in a wide variety of
disorders.

Folic acid, from fruits and vegetables, plays a role by powerfully
protecting against methanol (formaldehyde) toxicity.

Many common drugs, such as aspirin, interfere with folic acid,
as do some mutations in relevant enzymes.

The majority of aspartame reactors are female.

In mutual service, Rich Murray
************************************************************

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 146 members, 1,240 posts in a public, searchable
archive http://RoomForAll.blogspot.com
http://AspartameNM.blogspot.com

Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide
similar levels of methanol, above 100 mg daily, for
long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans.

Methanol is inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde,
and thence largely into formic acid.
It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next
morning" hangover.

Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg
methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned
into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg,
is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in
drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1237
ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are
formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources, including
from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins in fruits and
vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2005.10.26

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1238
Let's put aspartame toxicity facts on the table in public debate in The New
Mexican: Paul R. Block, CEO, Merisant Co.: Uleha: Murray 2005.10.26

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1239
your laptop will be ten million times faster in 15 years: Human life, the
next generation, Raymond Kurzweil, The New Scientist 2005.09.24; also his
1993 book, The 10% Solution For a Healthy Life: Murray 2005.10.30

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1240
Sweetness and Fight: Sugar and its substitutes take on the reigning champ,
Claudia Kalb, Anne Underwood, Vanessa Juarez, Newsweek
2005.11.07 issue: Murray 2005.10.30
***********************************************************
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.