DARK PEN

Does science achieve statistical probabilities, not certainties? Well, I think that, like all the other questions asked about natural sciences, life science, and philosophy, there isn’t a very straightforward answer to this question. Knowing about particles' momentum and position is not a certainty; it’s a probability . [1] But if you compare an electron with an M777 Howitzer shell, you can know precisely where it will hit, given you have done a fantastic amount of calculations on drag, air resistance, wind, barrel length, shell weight, and type of propellant [2] . There are so many variables [3] , and the more variables you add, the more probable it is that the certainty of your answer eventually shifts towards a probable answer . It does not mean the laws of classical mechanics don’t work; it simply means that statistical probabilities override certainties in a complex world like ours. Knowing something with certainty is as relative as the depth of the question. If you ask...

Someone asked me this question on Quora: If artificial intelligence developed to such an extent that it starts to consider itself aware, will we treat it as a person? I have already posted the translated version to Quora Hindi, but this is the original writing for this blog. I want to understand what we should consider intelligence. Neuroscience and psychology dictate that there are different kinds of intelligence. There is cognitive intelligence: the ability to process information, learn, solve problems, and make decisions. A sophisticated computer software, nothing more than thousands and thousands of lines of properly defined code, has been doing this for the last 3 decades. You input data, they analyze it, make a proper assessment and solve the problem for you and show results on screen. So the simple question is: are these softwares Intelligent software? If through lines of code one can achieve intelligence, does this mean that CAD or any physics engines are intelligent by design ...