Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, perhaps scarily, the idea is that you create a network that learns how to solve problems for itself. The machine's creator will never understand exactly how the calculation has been done.

I don't pretend to understand the maths in this pdf, but it sets out the problem and claims to have a way forward:

A quantum neural computer should be able to construct algorithms to solve problems which are inherently quantum mechanical – which cannot even be formulated classically - like the calculation of entanglement.

I'm excited by this stuff. Imho it is going to give us very profound insights into the nature of our own consciousness. I'm convinced that to some extent we are quantum computers. Algae are.

In the algae, says Curmi, quantum coherence is used to ensure the fastest possible transfer of sunlight energy, absorbed by light harvesting proteins, to reaction centres that convert the energy into something more useful.

It would be rather extraordinary if algae had hit on this as a way to work stuff out, but it wasn't being used in brains. Given what we already know about how brains work, I actually think it is pretty inconceivable that it is not used.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

We're just about to fall over the cliff, in other words. Any workings you can show for that graph?

We're always just about to fall off the cliff - either that, or we fell off the cliff a while ago but it was undetectable and we're just about to notice that we fell off the cliff.

 

[goldenecitrone]

it is claimed that a quantum computer has been able to factorise the number 143.

For each calculation, you need to manipulate the conditions so that the lowest energy state gives the right answer. For now, it is very limited in its application, but its potential is enormous. It is possible, for instance, that brains operate in a similar kind of way, the most efficient path giving the 'answer'. There could be huge potential for combining quantum computing principles with artificial neural networks.

The RSA encryption system is safe for the moment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The RSA encryption system is safe for the moment.

It is, yes.

That's the problem - we rely on algorithms that we can work out to use - according to that pdf I linked to, only two have been found so far. Shor's algorithm, for example, which is the one used in the factorisation. The trick will be to find a way to develop a neural network that can work out the right algorithms for itself. *all* you need is a way to develop networks in which efficiency = truth. I suspect that this is the way our own brains work, hence the way that pathways are reinforced by being insulated - made more efficient.

 

[camouflage]

It is, yes.

That's the problem - we rely on algorithms that we can work out to use - according to that pdf I linked to, only two have been found so far. Shor's algorithm, for example, which is the one used in the factorisation. The trick will be to find a way to develop a neural network that can work out the right algorithms for itself. *all* you need is a way to develop networks in which efficiency = truth. I suspect that this is the way our own brains work, hence the way that pathways are reinforced by being insulated - made more efficient.

I doubt our brains are interested in 'truth' to be fair. Reinforcing networks of association etc, sure. The facts of the matter are neither here nor there.

Surely you must have covered all this back in the LSD phase of college or uni or whatever?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I doubt our brains are interested in 'truth' to be fair. Association, reinforcement etc, sure. The facts of the matter are neither here nor there. You must have covered all this back in the LSD phase of college surely...

'Truth' for us! I wasn't particularly meaning anything transcendental there. With a quantum computer, the trick is to make its 'truth' (lowest energy state) the thing that we want it to do.

This is speculative what I'm saying about how brains work, but it isn't entirely fanciful.

 

[camouflage]

'Truth' for us! I wasn't particularly meaning anything transcendental there. With a quantum computer, the trick is to make its 'truth' (lowest energy state) the thing that we want it to do.

Just think of a fluid route-finding through a landscape of twelve dimensions or something.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Whilst it's certainly interesting, I'm struggling to see how making a quantum computer/synthetic brain will help us put food on the table when we run out of oil.

I still reckon my idea of a baked bean/condensed milk empire is the way forward

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just think of a fluid route-finding through a landscape of twelve dimensions or something.

Thousands of dimensions. That's effectively what a neural network is. All a dimension is is something that needs to be specified to define a point's position. How many connections do you need to specify to define a neuron's position in a brain? Thousands - as many connections as it has.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whilst it's certainly interesting, I'm struggling to see how making a quantum computer/synthetic brain will help us put food on the table when we run out of oil.

Well it could be a very large part of the answer, not least because massively improved computers would open up huge possibilities for working out the best way to grow food, for instance. It's not something to rely on , but it is just one of the myriad unknown possibilities of the future.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Beans it is then!

 

[Falcon]

Well it could be a very large part of the answer, not least because massively improved computers would open up huge possibilities for working out the best way to grow food, for instance. It's not something to rely on , but it is just one of the myriad unknown possibilities of the future.

Set aside, for a moment, the fact that we don't actually have such a capability. Set aside also the fact that such teraflop computational capability as we currently do have is colossally power intensive (mostly, cooling). Also set aside, for a moment, that a (hydrocarbon powered) global industrial manufacturing capability is a necessary precondition for manufacturing such a computing system and associated power and cooling systems. Then set aside the fact that you cannot simultaneously manufacture, maintain and operate an industrial manufacturing system, a renewable energy infrastructure and an industrialised society on the output of a renewable energy system. Then observe that solving (1) the global power system (2) the global industrial manufacturing capability (3) the lack of massively improved computers and (4) the food system all has to be carried out within the timeframe imposed by the depletion of the global hydrocarbon system.

Finally, note that an "unknown possibility of the future" for which no time remains to realise is indistinguishable from "no possibility of the future".

I suspect, in the end, that the civilisational apathy arising from Magic Thinking and hoping/waiting for a technical miracle for which the mental faculties of a 12 year old were sufficient to reason cannot exist will be what they pinpoint as the single mental disability that carried us off. It's why I keep calling this kind of bullshit every time I come across it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suspect, in the end, that the civilisational apathy arising from Magic Thinking and hoping/waiting for a technical miracle for which the faculties of a 12 year old were sufficient to reason cannot exist will be what they pinpoint as the single mental disability that carried us off. It's why I keep calling this kind of bullshit every time I come across it.

I'm not pinning my hopes to it. But it is an example of technology that could develop over the next couple of decades, and that could transform a lot of things. I was also trying to illustrate how predicting the future is fraught with danger.

You're the one with a degree of certainty in his predictions here. And the link in the OP is rubbish. You ought to concede that, at least.


ETA:

I don't apologise for being excited by possible developments in science in technology. Nor for not discounting the possibility that they could help us solve the biggest problems we face. That's not an excuse for doing nothing. But it is a reason not necessarily to feel despair.

 

[Falcon]

I'm not pinning my hopes to it. But it is an example of technology that could develop over the next couple of decades, and that could transform a lot of things. I was also trying to illustrate how predicting the future is fraught with danger.

Could. Couple of decades.

We don't have a couple of decades. 10% per annum depletion rate is a half time of 7 years. A couple of decades is 80x0.5x0.5x0.5 = 88% production loss of the only fluid we know how to run our food production and industrial civilisation by. Every substitution of primary fuel type in our history has been undertaken both by a higher density fuel of a lower, and before the peak of the expiring fuel i.e. with an energy surplus. We are undertaking it (and food supply and climate destabilisation) with an energy deficit - this is entirely new territory. We need to change the 747's engines out while it is still in flight, and you are proposing we land it for a couple of decades to figure things out. When they said in the 70's this was stuff we really needed to sort out as a matter of urgency, we decided to build a lifestyle based on SUVs and Tesco monoculture. We fucked it. Time's up.

You're the one with a degree of certainty in his predictions here. And the link in the OP is rubbish. You ought to concede that, at least.

The link is the link. I'm not defending the link - it is a useful general introduction to the subject area to those with no information and, like all overviews, balances breadth and depth. I am pointing out that the world view propagated by ayatollah that either you believe there is a solution, or you are a Nazi Malthusian eugenicist, is naive and self serving - a solution is by no means obvious, and stating that fact is by no means controversial.

An alternative, newer and more comprehensive reference is now Fleeing Vesuvius. "On the cusp of collapse: complexity, energy, and the globalised economy" (link) restates the OP case. Argue with that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The link is the link. I'm not defending the link - it is a useful general introduction to the subject area to those with no information and, like all overviews, balances breadth and depth.

It is a mess of misinformation. But I will happily leave that link to be quietly forgotten...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We're always just about to fall off the cliff - either that, or we fell off the cliff a while ago but it was undetectable and we're just about to notice that we fell off the cliff.

Us, now...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Us, now...

Us for the last few millennia too according to many. It's amazing how long you can keep hanging in the air by just pedalling your feet. Almost like you're not going to fall at all.

 

[Falcon]

It is a mess of misinformation. But I will happily leave that link to be quietly forgotten...

We can usefully distinguish between leaving a link to be quietly forgotten, and sticking our fingers in our ears and going "tra-la-la-la" over that which we find inconvenient to our pet theories.

I re-read it. I'm curious - recalling it is written for a general audience, what specifically do you believe supports your assertion that it is "misinformation"? I'm expecting several strong points, not a straw man argument constructed around whatever you perceive to be its weakest one ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've already covered parts of it. The crap about the Depression. The crap about pre-agricultural societies and what we can conclude about that. The crap about Britain's energy supply. I've made a few posts about it already. And that's just the stuff I'm qualified to have an opinion about. There's lots in there where I wouldn't know whether or not it is crap, but going on the stuff I do know is crap, I don't hold out much hope for it.

 

[Falcon]

I've already covered parts of it. The crap about the Depression. The crap about pre-agricultural societies and what we can conclude about that. The crap about Britain's energy supply. I've made a few posts about it already. And that's just the stuff I'm qualified to have an opinion about. There's lots in there where I wouldn't know whether or not it is crap, but going on the stuff I do know is crap, I don't hold out much hope for it.

On a rough estimate, he made about 40 distinct points. You identify three (depression, pre-agriculatural society, and the UK energy supply) and admit you don't know anything about the other 90%. The Depression is at best a minor point. Some incomprehensible speculations about pre-agricultural society (can I suggest Haberl's 'A socio-metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another Great Transformation' (2009)' for something rather more solid. An apparent obliviousness to the fact that the UK must decommission its nuclear and non-compliant coal fired power generation. The usual failure of thought caused by your reversal of causality between energy surplus and technology.

OK.

 

[elbows]

Could. Couple of decades.

We don't have a couple of decades. 10% per annum depletion rate is a half time of 7 years. A couple of decades is 80x0.5x0.5x0.5 = 88% production loss of the only fluid we know how to run our food production and industrial civilisation by.

I've asked you before to be even more specific if you are going to throw around such certain-sounding depletion rates. i.e. when does your clock tell you that the 10% depletion rate per annum begins/began?

I think I've also complained that whilst it is fair enough to point out that unconventional oil has been used to temporarily fill the gap, and this suff isn't as easy or cheap as the good old megafields, it still tends to deliver a net energy gain and thus cannot be ignored.

So, when do you think an actual decline,rather than plateau, of oil (both conventional and unconventional) begins? Because I don't think its so easy to put a precise date on it. And even if you can put a date on it, I think 10% decline rate isn't set in stone either. Its a fair starting point, but I doubt it will be quite so easily described in practice, especially looking at how this varies between fields. So we actually know how the remaining giants are going to behave, let alone some of the harder recent prospects? At this stage some aspects of the plateau are taking shape, and we have a reasonable idea of the theory and past history of decline, but as the present situation with natural gas shows I don't think we can graph the future with the level of precision you like to make out.

Anyway, lets find some common ground on this thread. Is there anyone here that thinks the age of cheap oil is not over?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On a rough estimate, he made about 40 distinct points. You identify three (depression, pre-agriculatural society, and the UK energy supply) and admit you don't know anything about the other 90%. The Depression is at best a minor point. Some incomprehensible speculations about pre-agricultural society (can I suggest Haberl's 'A socio-metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another Great Transformation' (2009)' for something rather more solid. An apparent obliviousness to the fact that the UK must decommission its nuclear and non-compliant coal fired power generation. The usual failure of thought around caused by the reversal of causality between energy surplus and technology.

OK.

You didn't understand what I said about pre-agricultural society? Ok. I don't care too much about that - suffice to say that that link talks out of its arse on the subject. Nothing but uninformed garbage. Indicative of an author who takes a tiny bit of knowledge and extrapolates wildly from it without properly informing himself about the subject.

The Depression isn't a minor point. It forms part of the overall narrative, in particular the idea that THE TRUTH is being withheld from us. It is historically wrong, and indicative of a lazy author who is prepared to include uninformed crap as a part of his argument.

His point about the UK's energy supply dropping by 40% by 2014 is clearly wrong. He included caveats, but why include such a rubbish thing?

Give up on that link. It's a great big pile of intellectually dishonest poo.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyway, lets find some common ground on this thread. Is there anyone here that thinks the age of cheap oil is not over?

I would think that it probably is, yes. I don't agree that this means the collapse of civilisation as we know it, though.

 

[Falcon]

Give up on that link. It's a great big pile of intellectually dishonest poo.

A point you have singularly failed to make.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A point you have singularly failed to make.

If you read the thread, I've made a few points about that link. Not going to waste any more time on it.

 

[Falcon]

His point about the UK's energy supply dropping by 40% by 2014 is clearly wrong. He included caveats, but why include such a rubbish thing?

UK oil production fell 25% in 2011. It will fall >25% in 2012. The Government's chief Scientific adviser warns the UK is heading for power blackouts in 5 years, facing replacement of 25% of its electrical generating capacity and an investment of £200 billion as we slide into sovereign default. (reference) etc. etc.

This was to substantiate your claim that the piece contains misinformation?

 

[Falcon]

Not going to waste any more time on it.

Excellent idea.

 

[Falcon]

I've asked you before to be even more specific if you are going to throw around such certain-sounding depletion rates. i.e. when does your clock tell you that the 10% depletion rate per annum begins/began?

I think I've also complained that whilst it is fair enough to point out that unconventional oil has been used to temporarily fill the gap, and this suff isn't as easy or cheap as the good old megafields, it still tends to deliver a net energy gain and thus cannot be ignored.

So, when do you think an actual decline,rather than plateau, of oil (both conventional and unconventional) begins? Because I don't think its so easy to put a precise date on it. And even if you can put a date on it, I think 10% decline rate isn't set in stone either. Its a fair starting point, but I doubt it will be quite so easily described in practice, especially looking at how this varies between fields. So we actually know how the remaining giants are going to behave, let alone some of the harder recent prospects? At this stage some aspects of the plateau are taking shape, and we have a reasonable idea of the theory and past history of decline, but as the present situation with natural gas shows I don't think we can graph the future with the level of precision you like to make out.

Anyway, lets find some common ground on this thread. Is there anyone here that thinks the age of cheap oil is not over?

Jesus, elbows, I like you but did you even bother to read the material I pointed out to you? It was only a few pages. Every single one of your queries is addressed by a bunch of world class petroleum engineers and energy economists.

 

[elbows]

Im asking YOU when YOU think the clock starts on the 10% decline per year that you are so fond of falling back on.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

UK oil production fell 25% in 2011. It will fall >25% in 2012. The Government's chief Scientific adviser warns the UK is heading for power blackouts in 5 years, facing replacement of 25% of its electrical generating capacity and an investment of £200 billion as we slide into sovereign default. (reference) etc. etc.

This was to substantiate your claim that the piece contains misinformation?

ok, one last reference to that stupid link. A direct quote:

Britain will apparently be losing 40 percent of its electrical power between 2008 and 2014.

Not happening, is it?

That wasn't so much misinformation as a prediction that isn't coming true. btw, the stuff about the Irish famine in there is also misinformed. It ignores the wider political reasons for the famine. It contains precisely zero political analysis of anything, in fact.

'as we slide into sovereign default'? Big assertion as if it were self-evident fact. It isn't.