Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Hmm ... except that even the best (quantum) computer crunching even super-accurate astronomical data couldn't predict uncharted objects or the paths of other ships suddenly folding into the destination system.

As I understood prescience, the oracle can somehow observe the possibilities in the wave function of particles. But there's no way you could observe all of these at one time because the information would presumably reach you at the speed of light at the fastest (perhaps there is a clue here as to the oracle seeing the past as well). Thus the oracle must somehow deduce the future from the possibilities that are open in the immediate surroundings. Perhaps the greater the prescient the greater the immediate surroundings are. Anyway this is supported by the future being clouded into a nexus whenever the things (events) the future relies on are all together and happening close together. Perhaps with some sort of massive computation this could be judged. In Michael Crichton's Timeline quantum computers operate in all parallel universes thus operating at infinite (or whatever) speed.

Or I'm just crazy...

Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.

And I really don't think you want to bring the speed of light into it....

Ok I'll wait until I've studied a bit more physics.

Great food for thought though (and discussion ).

In simple terms, Frank did not want humans to rely on any system that uses a starting point that is static. Because over time that static fact starting point key stone, can change and thus the entire system is flawed. All AI is still currently based on IF STATEMENTS. That’s why AI as a subject is basically flawed.

SwordMaster wrote:In simple terms, Frank did not want humans to rely on any system that uses a starting point that is static. Because over time that static fact starting point key stone, can change and thus the entire system is flawed. All AI is still currently based on IF STATEMENTS. That’s why AI as a subject is basically flawed.

One could argue that human intelligence is also based on IF statements, just much more complex and refined.

Isn't everything we (think we) know based around some sort of IF statement? For example IF the universe follows logical laws/rules/whatever then: and follow with some conclusion based on evidence etc.

Also we can only assume that what we perceive is real as far as I know.

Edit: sorry this should be in The Limits Of Logic; I pressed new topic instead of reply.

EDIT: Merged to the proper topic. Omph.

Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

You mean like the tao orgy?

I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?

chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

I would personally love to hear your take on this, CL.

moreh_yeladim wrote:

loremaster wrote:My personal favourite from Frank was that "Logic may be fine for pyramid chess, but it's often too slow in real situations" (paraphrased from CH:D)

Also, to humour chigger and try to postulate about future computational ability and the current limits of technology, does anyone know about this idea of quantum computing? It's a sort of thought experiment whereby utilising quantum phenomena we could have computers which render redundant many of todays security and computing features. An example would be a padlock, with any length code, and any number of potential symbols per place, STILL has a definite number of combinations. Quantum computing is supposed to be able to bypass this sort of thing.

Actually, notice how quantum computing functions like Dune prescience in a way. Even when a problem is what we computing sorts call "NP-complete" (meaning that there's no algorithm to solve it quicker than trying every individual possibility), quantum computing can supposedly find a solution by trying all those possibilities in a quantum superposition and settling on the one that is correct. Guild Navigators are completely unnecessary!

Thank you, moreh, this was the phenomena i was trying to discuss.

I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.

This fits nicely because:

I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).

And Sadistic Cynic:

I havent even seen this idea of quantum encryption, but it sounds cool. give me a few days to read about it and i`ll get back to you.

I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.

This is a similar conclusion to the one I reached; I'm not totally yet!

This fits nicely because:

I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).

And this I love! Nice idea!

chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

Freakzilla wrote:I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?

Especially when Dune is full of references to the Tao.

You could also say he stole his ideas on impermanence from the Greek guy who said that you can never step into the same river twice.

Plenty of Herbert's stuff comes from existentialist philosophers. He quotes Kierkegaard and often paraphrases Nietzsche. Let's not get into all the political philosophers Herbert "steals" from. Or the other poets and writers. It adds to the work if you recognize it, and if you don't, at least the idea is there for you to think about.

loremaster wrote:

moreh_yeladim wrote:

loremaster wrote:My personal favourite from Frank was that "Logic may be fine for pyramid chess, but it's often too slow in real situations" (paraphrased from CH:D)

Also, to humour chigger and try to postulate about future computational ability and the current limits of technology, does anyone know about this idea of quantum computing? It's a sort of thought experiment whereby utilising quantum phenomena we could have computers which render redundant many of todays security and computing features. An example would be a padlock, with any length code, and any number of potential symbols per place, STILL has a definite number of combinations. Quantum computing is supposed to be able to bypass this sort of thing.

Actually, notice how quantum computing functions like Dune prescience in a way. Even when a problem is what we computing sorts call "NP-complete" (meaning that there's no algorithm to solve it quicker than trying every individual possibility), quantum computing can supposedly find a solution by trying all those possibilities in a quantum superposition and settling on the one that is correct. Guild Navigators are completely unnecessary!

Thank you, moreh, this was the phenomena i was trying to discuss.

I also find it easier to think of the prescient as collapsing quantum uncertainties in the universe. If you imagine all future as following a sort of uncertainty principle, with all states existing in potentia until a decision is made and they are observed, at which point only one must be followed. After this point, even destruction of the observer does not change the future, unless leto goes all out to subvert it. Normally they are observed as they happen, but a prescient can leap ahead and predict the uncertainties before they occur.

This fits nicely because:

I also like modelling prescient invisibility with wave interference. A prescient could be imagined to emit a sort of wave, which could be listened to as a kind of "time-echo". a la bat echolocation. Another prescient emitting his own waves would distort the image of another. Not completely, but certainly enough where they were more intense (eg around a prescient).

And Sadistic Cynic:

I havent even seen this idea of quantum encryption, but it sounds cool. give me a few days to read about it and i`ll get back to you.

Ugh. This is why I hate quantum mechanics. It only applies to really tiny things like electrons and photons, thus the QUANTUM part. Applying things like wave functions to people simply doesn't work in any rational way.

Phaedrus wrote:

chanilover wrote:Frank stole his ideas on impermanence and flux from the Tao Te Ching. Next time I read Dune I'll make notes of all the Taoist influences, so you can see what I mean.

Freakzilla wrote:I think "stole" is kinda harsh, CL.

Can you steal an idea from philosphy or religion?

Especially when Dune is full of references to the Tao.

You could also say he stole his ideas on impermanence from the Greek guy who said that you can never step into the same river twice.

Plenty of Herbert's stuff comes from existentialist philosophers. He quotes Kierkegaard and often paraphrases Nietzsche. Let's not get into all the political philosophers Herbert "steals" from. Or the other poets and writers. It adds to the work if you recognize it, and if you don't, at least the idea is there for you to think about.

*sigh*

No shit, Sherlock.

That's basically what I was saying, chanilover.

Separated by a common tongue ... so tragic.



So ... how about an uncommon tongue?!

How you think I GOT PIX!!!

Ahem. Enough derailing this thread.

Baraka Bryan wrote:did you just get a new webcam that you're playing with or something

SandChigger wrote:How you think I GOT PIX!!!

The limits of logic indeed.

Freakzilla wrote:Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.

No it isn't the future is fixed and solid as a rock, what changes, it's our path thru the Multiverse, whenever you take a decision or perform a measurement you change of Universe. Remember that different observers moving to different speeds measure different times for the events they witness, and different lengths for the physical objects. As was demonstrated by the General Theory of Relativity.

cmsahe wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Paul and Leto frequently said that things were always in motion, the universe is in a constant state of change and there are no permanent laws. The future is always changing with it.

No it isn't the future is fixed and solid as a rock, what changes, it's our path thru the Multiverse, whenever you take a decision or perform a measurement you change of Universe. Remember that different observers moving to different speeds measure different times for the events they witness, and different lengths for the physical objects. As was demonstrated by the General Theory of Relativity.

The what?

First of all, Freak was talking about Paul and Leto II, characters in a fictional universe where you can predict the future, not the state of physics theory.

And bullshit "the future is fixed and solid". Taking even the many-worlds interpretation that you have, the path through the multiverse *is* our future and that path changes as you've said, so our future changes - it is not solid (not to mention that the multiverse is not an undisputed model of quantum physics, the copenhagen interpretation in fact is more accepted by physicists so I hear). Also, that was the special theory of relativity, not general. (the general theory of relativity is a generalisation of that to include Newton's gravitation theories).

And yet again, you've missed the point there - relativistic effects can be predicted precisely, so if two observers can account for relativistic shifts, they will always measure the same event consistently. Probably what you're