Return to Question

I've looked into the question already and no one really seems to answer it very well. I'll sum up what I've found so far.

Some people say that it would not work:

• "the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."
• Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Some are claiming that computers are already running some governmental services using algorithms that run software such as for voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the services via internet. They are maintained and updated by people, either directly or indirectly.

To quote another person's asking the question in a different way:

"If the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memcomputer. If quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing figured out, it is thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, eventually we will understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.

I've looked into the question already and no one really seems to answer it very well. I'll sum up what I've found so far.

Some people say that it would not work:

• "the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."
• Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Some are claiming that computers are already running some governmental services using algorithms that run software such as for voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the services via internet. They are maintained and updated by people, either directly or indirectly.

To quote another person's asking the question in a different way:

"If the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memcomputer. If quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing figured out, it is thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, eventually we will understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.

My question is important in the context of hard-science fiction, since I'd like to make the hypothetical world as realistic as possible.

I've looked into the question and, so far, no one really seems to answer it very well. To break it down into the two opposing answers, I'll sum up what I've found so far.

In the negative, people say that there are too many hurdles to jump. This line of reasoning seems to go:

"the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."

Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Assertions that such is already the case tend to cite examples of algorithms that run software used by present governments, or mere digitial formats of services that used to be presented in person or by mail, such as voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are all false in that they are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the service via internet. They are, as well, maintained, updated and designed by people, either directly or indirectly.

With those two basic answers summed up, the question presented is still valid, as I see it. To quote another person's asking the question in a different way,

"If the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memcomputer, and if quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing and mass production figured out, it is of course thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true, which so far it has, and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, it should follow that eventually we understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, etc, then can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.

I've looked into the question already and no one really seems to answer it very well. I'll sum up what I've found so far.

Some people say that it would not work:

• "the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."
• Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Some are claiming that computers are already running some governmental services using algorithms that run software such as for voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the services via internet. They are maintained and updated by people, either directly or indirectly.

To quote another person's asking the question in a different way:

"If the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memcomputer. If quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing figured out, it is thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, eventually we will understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.

My question is important in the context of hard-science fiction, since I'd like to make the hypothetical world as realistic as possible.

I've looked into the question and, so far, no one really seems to answer it very well. To break it down into the two opposing answers, I'll sum up what I've found so far.

In the negative, people say that there are too many hurdles to jump. This line of reasoning seems to go:

"the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."

Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Assertions that such is already the case tend to cite examples of algorithms that run software used by present governments, or mere digitial formats of services that used to be presented in person or by mail, such as voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are all false in that they are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the service via internet. They are, as well, maintained, updated and designed by people, either directly or indirectly.

With those two basic answers summed up, the question presented is still valid, since in the negative not much is answered beyond "no." Therefore, I quote:

"if the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memecomputer, and if quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing and mass production figured out, it is of course thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true, which so far it has, and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, it should follow that eventually we understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, etc, then can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.

My question is important in the context of hard-science fiction, since I'd like to make the hypothetical world as realistic as possible.

I've looked into the question and, so far, no one really seems to answer it very well. To break it down into the two opposing answers, I'll sum up what I've found so far.

In the negative, people say that there are too many hurdles to jump. This line of reasoning seems to go:

"the parameters would always limit the decisions a computer could make and because no set of parameters could include every possible data set, the computer would never be able to ''decide''."

Or, "computers can't have freedom of the wills, and therefore it's impossible." Or, "computers can't form ideas or concepts, therefore impossible."

Assertions that such is already the case tend to cite examples of algorithms that run software used by present governments, or mere digitial formats of services that used to be presented in person or by mail, such as voting, paying taxes, etc. These, however, are all false in that they are not "run" by computers but by people who provide the service via internet. They are, as well, maintained, updated and designed by people, either directly or indirectly.

With those two basic answers summed up, the question presented is still valid, as I see it. To quote another person's asking the question in a different way,

"If the only legitimate government is one run by the tenants of reason, logic, and truth, then would a computer-run government be more efficient and more free than one run by men and women--supposing that computer software were able to calculate, in real time, the extreme stochastic processes involved, and supposing computer hardware were reliable enough?"

In recent years, to evince a possible positive response, computer scientists have managed to build a memcomputer, and if quantum computing or graphene can be cracked and their manufacturing and mass production figured out, it is of course thought that human consciousness has a good chance of being understood, although this is still conjecture. Also, if Moore's law holds true, which so far it has, and the predicted silicon crisis can be avoided, it should follow that eventually we understand human consciousness well enough to mimic it with computers. Still, even if a computer isn't "conscious" it can still be made to make decisions in given circumstances.

In short, if such a computer could be conceived of, what would absolutely need to be in place before it could have any hope of working? If it could never work, in your view, such as seen in something like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or The Two Faces of Tomorrow, etc, then can you elaborate as to why not, convincingly? For example, maybe certain governmental departments would work, in your view, but others less probably?

Thanks.