I see this pertaining to quantum physics/computing. I think it's trying to posit: "fluctuations in physically-coupled systems (tug-of-war dynamics) can be used to reliably and efficiently infer state/logic when the initial, discrete distribution is known."
To break that down a bit...
- They describe tug-of-war dynamics as a sort of "rigid physical coupling," and briefly allude to practical applications, stating that they've implemented this dynamic in "... quantum dots, single photons and atomic switches."
- They are using a poor example as the conceptual nature of the 'slot machines' and iron bar seems irrelevant -- it's just an analogy for a "measurable state" represented in a physically-coupled construct.
As for why it's relevant, it seems to be the cornerstone of an alternate paradigm to computing that when scaled down (to nanotechnology and quantum particles) can allow physical systems to represent logic and state without electrical transistors. That would appear to have application in every field from medicine to defense (smart materials, targeted drug delivery, et. al).
The breakthrough has 0 to do with the lovely "iron bar," and instead seems to be in their method of physical coupling, allowing them to represent binary switches reliably in the physical realm at quantum scale.
Then again...
"Other than this fluctuation, we added another fluctuation to our model. The important point is ... fluctuations."
> "The most important implication that we wish to claim is that the proposed scheme will provide a new perspective for understanding the information-processing principles of certain lower forms of life," Kim, from the International Center for Materials Nanoarchitectonics' National Institute for Materials Science in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, told Phys.org. "These lower lifeforms exploit their underlying physics without needing any sophisticated neural systems."
I think it's a very weird analogy, and a terrible title for an article on phys.org.
Terrible headline.
Are they even suggesting that the bar is somehow affected by the output of (perhaps) coins from the slot machine... electromagnetic interactions? Or is the slot machine example simply a thought experiment? I suspect we may be attempting to process bad input here...
The article states: "Every time the outcome of a play of machine A ends in a reward, the bar moves to the left a specific distance, and every time the outcome ends in no reward, the bar moves to the right a specific distance. The same goes for a play of machine B, but the directions of the bar movements are reversed. After enough trials, the bar's total displacement reveals which slot machine offers the better winning probability." There's no locomotion reinforcement which can apply to the iron bar.
Something (either a physical mechanism or a guiding hand) needs to move the bar. Now the math of problem solving seems to still work out, but the mechanism of locomotion needs to be included in the system to get a proper description of the entropy at play.
So if we then say "after enough trials, the measurement dial's positive or negative reading tells us which slot machine offers the better winning probability", would that still seem like something worth publishing a paper on?
Or have I just totally missed the point?
I'm sorry but this sounds more like a way of measurements and calculations than actual decision-making, as that's been decided by the maker or user of the object.
First, the bar is has a action-response rule-based mechanism based on the input of winning or losing combined with which direction it came from right or left. That's it.
An externality can then infer that the bar has made a decision, but of course, the bar has made no such decision.
This is still useful, but it's overblown to call this "decision-making" outside of decisions made exclusively within a strict framework of primitive rules. That said, many fundamental human reactions and decisions follow a pretty strict framework of primitive rules. That's why most people fail to grok the ladder of inference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJLqOclPqis
I don't think they're literally saying the iron bar is making a decision, and I'm a little surprised that would have flown over the heads of most of the readers here.
But the "decision-making" here is dubious. If Searle had written an "Iron Bar Gambling Room" argument, I bet most people would have rejected the notion that the room was "deciding" anything. This is little different from light-sensitive cells in primitive eyespots accumulating energy from photons to "decide" the direction of the sun.
In short, this paper is what happens when people chase the Minimum Publishable Unit for their career.
Maybe it's just my bias as a computer scientist, but I would never dream that they would find anything but what they found. Having read the paper, they're basically proposing alternate models of computations, but computer scientists have hardly been blinded by transistors; proposing alternate models is a hobby, and there's at least one large one getting a lot of study to the point that I expect everyone will just understand the acronym without my expansion, QC. We've computed with water (both macroscopic and microfluidics), mechanical machinery (i.e., cogs not transistors), chemistry, DNA, analog circuitry, and light, and I'm sure that's not a complete list. We've hypothesized computing with mechanical nanotechnology, von Neuman replicators (up to and including converting entire astronomical bodies), black holes, closed timelike curves, and the fundamental structure of spacetime itself. If this was proposed as a Master's thesis in computer science, the advisor would advise the student to do something less pedestrian.
That doesn't make this paper "bad" in some absolute sense, but I'm surprised it's publishable, since for better or worse that incorporates a certain amount of novelty in its criteria.
I can see how someone with such views would find it logical to attribute decision-making to objects or find it a sensible choice of words. It doesn't really change the conclusions of the research anyway.
"An article must meet the highest scientific quality standards, both in terms of originality and significance, and the research results should make substantial advances within a particular subfield of physics."
We build a bit, we test, if it's solid, we build a bit more. We don't need to come up with hypothetical black hole computers.
The paper and the concept of TOW dynamics has been referenced in http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13253 which shares one of the authors and is interesting in a different way.
I get tired of people saying things that aren't exciting enough shouldn't be published. It's not the exciting things that make the breakthroughs, it's understanding a bit more about the things we've always figured are obvious. To me this is more interesting than some hypothetical black hole computer. Sure it's not blowing me away.
It's just a block. A little block. Other ideas can choose to use that block or not. I haven't seen that system of tug-of-war dynamics described before. It seems solid, so why not describe it?
Or does it need to be antimatter hoverboards to be worth publishing?
