Can a Robot be Programmed to Remember its Future?

[ranyart]

There is an interesting article I have just read which details a neat perspective of :The Physics Of 'Now'.

Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[chroot]

This sounds suspiciously like nonsense.

- Warren

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by chroot
This sounds suspiciously like nonsense.

- Warren

Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by ranyart
Coot,

Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[Janus]

Nonsense or not, I see no connection with this and SR or GR, and don't see where else it to move it, so it's TD by default

 

[russ_watters]

A robot can be programmed to decide what it will do in the future, but that's not "remembering" what it will do.

 

[Zero]

I'd love to declare this flat-out BS, but it isn't even coherent enough to make a decision about!

 

[EL]

Originally posted by ranyart
The Question now is, between the moment 0<--->0 is the Robot Remembering its Future?

What do you mean by this? Don´t you mean: When the robot will be in state 0 the second time, does it remember it´s future?

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by EL
What do you mean by this? Don´t you mean: When the robot will be in state 0 the second time, does it remember it´s future?

Perhaps you chaps..better tell James B Hartle what you all think then!
The paper is linked below..for your valued attention.

James B Hartle..The Physics Of 'Now'.

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403001.pdf

PS..EL forgive me responding to your post, it happens to be the last one, I will elaborate at a later date, giving those soem time to read the actual paper.

 

[ranyart]

To PF MENTORS!

Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[chroot]

Personally, it seems to me that having a bunch of well-informed mentors who all make the same decision about the same piece of nonsense makes a forum better.

- Warren

 

[EL]

Originally posted by ranyart
PS..EL forgive me responding to your post, it happens to be the last one, I will elaborate at a later date, giving those soem time to read the actual paper.

Ranyart. Just so you didn´t missunderstand me. I was asking what you ment just because I didn´t understand it. Nothing else...

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by EL
Ranyart. Just so you didn´t missunderstand me. I was asking what you ment just because I didn´t understand it. Nothing else...

I have not miss-understood you, but mearly took it that you did not read the linked paper by J B Hartle?..and you were assuming that my original post was something that I had personally made up myself?

If you have read the 'linked paper', then Yes I have missunderstood you?

Q?..have you read the paper by James B Hartle?

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by chroot
Personally, it seems to me that having a bunch of well-informed mentors who all make the same decision about the same piece of nonsense makes a forum better.

- Warren

Now that you clearly have a deep understanding of my Original post,Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ranyart
Now that you clearly have a deep understanding of my Original post, you can if it pleases you give some precise reasons why you have taken such a simple posting to be utter nonsense? I am not making any implicit deformations to your character personally, its just you have not posted a single reason as to why the post 'bugs' you so much?

Burden of proof lies in the new idea, not the old ones. Setting aside that it sounds like meaningless gibberish, it would take quite a bit of clear, incontrovertible evidence to overturn existing theories on the workings of time, since those theories work exquisitely well.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Burden of proof lies in the new idea, not the old ones. Setting aside that it sounds like meaningless gibberish, it would take quite a bit of clear, incontrovertible evidence to overturn existing theories on the workings of time, since those theories work exquisitely well.

Just a simplified overview I want to ask this question:Can a Robot remember its Future?

 

[Integral]

I get very unhappy when one of our robots "forgets its future" this would imply that it has lost its teach points and needs to be taught again. For some tools this process can take anywhere from several hours to several DAYS.

I say it has forgotten its future because its future it to move from park position to the cassette station, pick up a wafer deliver it to the process station, retrieve the wafer from the process and return it to the cassette. It is the fate of our robots to repeat this process 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, that is its future and past and present.


I guess my intimate relationship with real world working robots gives me a twisted view. It must be nice to dream about what you thing a robot ought be with no real world constraints. But then what is the meaning of these dreams?

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Integral
I get very unhappy when one of our robots "forgets its future" this would imply that it has lost its teach points and needs to be taught again. For some tools this process can take anywhere from several hours to several DAYS.

I say it has forgotten its future because its future it to move from park position to the cassette station, pick up a wafer deliver it to the process station, retrieve the wafer from the process and return it to the cassette. It is the fate of our robots to repeat this process 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, that is its future and past and present.


I guess my intimate relationship with real world working robots gives me a twisted view. It must be nice to dream about what you thing a robot ought be with no real world constraints. But then what is the meaning of these dreams?

Now you have really hit a nerve here:It must be nice to dream about what you thing a robot ought be with no real world constraints.

This is contained within R B Hartles paper, and one which I most would like to inquire into. Just one or two major problems that the paper gives,( JBH actually is only producing a 'toy' model), but there are some interesting aspects of the initial set-up, and the overall paper I suppose is not meant to be taken Literally (as with my initial post!).

It seems that science is turning to 'toy' models in an ever increasing fashion, but how close to reality are these meant to reflect?

 

[EL]

Originally posted by ranyart
I have not miss-understood you, but mearly took it that you did not read the linked paper by J B Hartle?..and you were assuming that my original post was something that I had personally made up myself?

If you have read the 'linked paper', then Yes I have missunderstood you?

Q?..have you read the paper by James B Hartle?

No I havn´t, because it looked long and boring. But I didn´t assume you had personally made it up. I became a little interested but was too lazy to read it all. Therefore I wonder if you can answer my question or not? To be honest I don´t think I will take my time to read it. That´s the whole truth...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ranyart
Russ, no doubt your valued opinion and insights fair well with the amount of..excuse the 'Lisa-Simpson' terminology, Dumbing-ing!

That's "dumbening." Never blaspheme Lisa Simpson in my presence.

but tell me Have you actually heard of R B Hartle?..have you actually read his paper that I linked to?

Quite simply the answer is no.

Quite right. I summarily rejected the idea without reading the paper. Its that absurd.

on this paper, even though I aint read it

Pot=kettle. I rejected it without reading it and you are lending credence to it without reading it. Ironic, isn't it? I can promise you one thing though: the scientific community is more likely to reject this paper without reading it than to accept it without reading it. There is a reason for that.

I get very unhappy when one of our robots "forgets its future" this would imply that it has lost its teach points and needs to be taught again.

Good way to think about it. A hard drive or ram chip is called "memory" after all. It damn well better "remember" its future, otherwise it won't remember to do what you told it to when it gets there.

 

[Pergatory]

Such hostility! May I suggest a less offensive approach in your wording? I believe you'd find it has much better results.

Anyway, regarding the link you posted, it was an amusing read, but I don't think it has any implications as to a computer which remembers the future as we remember the past. No matter how an observing body interprets information it has received, or how it makes use of that information, the fact is that the information is observed on an exact 'time arrow' as the laws of physics operate. From the link:

First consider the question of whether information from the future could be recorded by the robot. In our universe, electromagnetic radiation is retarded -- propagating to the future of its emission event. That time asymmetry is the radiation arrow of time. The electromagnetic signals recorded by the robot propogated to it along the past light cone of the reception event. The images received by the robot,... are therefore all from past events."

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That's "dumbening." Never blaspheme Lisa Simpson in my presence. Quite right. I summarily rejected the idea without reading the paper. Its that absurd. Pot=kettle. I rejected it without reading it and you are lending credence to it without reading it. Ironic, isn't it? I can promise you one thing though: the scientific community is more likely to reject this paper without reading it than to accept it without reading it. There is a reason for that.

Just to get some fact straight (Not a personal attack or anything)
you say here:Pot=kettle. I rejected it without reading it and you are lending credence to it without reading it. Ironic, isn't it?

I have read the paper by J R Hartle, I was making a concise satement:
Let me be first to actually congratulate you on this paper, even though I aint read it..and even though you have not written it..we can all agree what a fantastic achievement it is!

about an hypothetical paper 'you' might be considering to be writing?

Anyway, I acknowledge your honesty in actually not denying that you have not read the J R Hartle paper.

Just to fill in a few deliberate gaps I left out for everybody's understanding of why I posted this (most troublesome little ditty that everyone seems to have a problem working out in order to comment).

The J R Hartle paper puts forward a simplistic system of Information Flow, abbrievated to (IGUS-information gathering utilizing systems).

This whole exercise was based exactly on this, allthough I may have oversimplified (Simpson notion!) the exercise went almost exactly as I had imagined it. The first reply by Chroot was anticipated 100%, and for this I thank him! . Of course if one was to look carefully at my first post, there was no reference to the actual paper of R B Hartle, just the first part of the link: arXiv:gr-qc
and a title heading:The Physics of 'Now'.

I am not going to go into the details of 'Mentor' ethics, but just to say there is not much point in mentoring current scientific topics if one does not actually READ or delve a little into post topics?, I understand that Mentors have limited time in observing all current postings to the extent that 'Frantic' replies can sometime's be given without much thought, for instance a post such as mine caused so much obvious Phsychological impact upon them, they feel 'uneasy' and tend to jump to conclusions.

J B Hartle himself in his closing acknowledgments gives reference to: Terry Sejnowski and Roger Shepard for the information about the literature in Psychology that bears on the subject of this paper.

For some the Physics of 'Now' means finding the courage to tackle 'how we gather and utilize information gathering and utilizing systems (IGUSes)...which is what I thought PF purported to be!
The replies I received have really given me some quite insights and laughs, to the Physics of Now.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Pergatory
Such hostility! May I suggest a less offensive approach in your wording? I believe you'd find it has much better results.

Anyway, regarding the link you posted, it was an amusing read, but I don't think it has any implications as to a computer which remembers the future as we remember the past. No matter how an observing body interprets information it has received, or how it makes use of that information, the fact is that the information is observed on an exact 'time arrow' as the laws of physics operate. From the link:

Thanks! This is a very interesting paper, it has some 'deep' aspects of how we deal with information as you state. The author has clearly taken some deep philosophical reasoning, as well as a complex well thought out way he represents a toy model.

My posting was a poor attempt to instigate debate, but I may have oversimplified it that lessened the impact?..or maybe the answer to the question is contained within the post title itself

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ranyart
Just to fill in a few deliberate gaps I left out...

...I may have oversimplified (Simpson notion!) the exercise went almost exactly as I had imagined it. The first reply by Chroot was anticipated 100%, and for this I thank him! . Of course if one was to look carefully at my first post, there was no reference to the actual paper of R B Hartle, just the first part of the link: arXiv:gr-qc
and a title heading:The Physics of 'Now'.

I am not going to go into the details of 'Mentor' ethics, but just to say there is not much point in mentoring current scientific topics if one does not actually READ or delve a little into post topics?

I'm not following. Are you saying this whole exercise was to show that we wouldn't read a paper that had what we consider an absurd premise? You could have just asked. Or better yet, search for and read some threads about the process of science. There are many right here in TD (also, Skepticism and Debunking) where we explain why it is perfectly acceptable to do such a thing.

 

[Sariaht]

You could easily guess what's going to happen, even in a far future.