Artificial Intelligence is billions of years old

[SeekTruth]

On 4/8/2021 at 7:38 PM, zep73 said:

Superposition is one example. When a particle is in two states at the same time.

But said particles are not actually in two places at one time. It's merely that the location of the particles cannot be known until observed.  

[khol]

On 4/8/2021 at 2:03 PM, Nosy.Matters said:

|s it a Book ? .. or film ?

My apologies Nosy..I had a typo there. I should have said " watching" not "reading" 

There is the conception of infinity that humans have no way of grasping. Bubble universes being born from one another in a way that gives no explanation of a begining or an end. Your left wondering what these universes are expanding into and on and on it goes

[Nosy.Matters]

16 minutes ago, khol said:

My apologies Nosy..I had a typo there. I should have said " watching" not "reading" 

There is the conception of

Yes,, the subject is spooky and fun.  |'m into reading lately esp. w/ Limited internet connection.  

 

Thx on the reply, regards.

[Grim Reaper 6]

Here is a very good book all can access online on the subject of String Theory, I have read it and while not an expert on the subject the approach to this theory is very interesting. I would recommend it to anyone that is interested in expanding their knowledge on this subject.

@zep73 @Troublehalf @Rlyeh @khol @HortaBut 

[zep73]

14 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

But said particles are not actually in two places at one time. It's merely that the location of the particles cannot be known until observed.  

Not places, states. A particle can have an up-spin or a down-spin. In the superposition it has both. When observed, it "chooses" one of them.

The uncertainty principle is a different matter, where you can't know a particle's position and momentum (speed) at the same time.

I'll PM you soon!

[zep73]

22 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Reincarnation in a nutshell.

So, now you want to talk to me again? I'm glad!

I'm not dismissing reincarnation personally, only stating that, from a scientific POV it's obscure and shattered, when it comes to evidence. Impossible to make a conclusion.

Personally I think there might be something to it. Like if we were players in a video game. If we fail to reach our goals at first run, we get a new chance. But unlike a video game, the world cannot be reset, every time we fail, so we get a new avatar, a new life, instead.

Not my favorite theory, but I can accept it as a faint possibility.

Edited April 10, 2021 by zep73

[SeekTruth]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:38 AM, zep73 said:

Not places, states. A particle can have an up-spin or a down-spin. In the superposition it has both. When observed, it "chooses" one of them.

The uncertainty principle is a different matter, where you can't know a particle's position and momentum (speed) at the same time.

I'll PM you soon!

In the superposition is has both an  up spin and a down spin? How does this make sense?

[ChrLzs]

Why do things have to make sense to someone who hasn't done even basic reading on the topic?

Start from the basics... 

 

I do a lot of reading into subjects like these and there are several things that do not make common sense, but .. they are observably true.

In the same vein, is it 'common sense' that light is, for some reason, the 'speed limit' of the Cosmos?

[SeekTruth]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why do things have to make sense to someone who hasn't done even basic reading on the topic?

Start from the basics... 

 

I do a lot of reading into subjects like these and there are several things that do not make common sense, but .. they are observably true.

In the same vein, is it 'common sense' that light is, for some reason, the 'speed limit' of the Cosmos?

No need to be presumptuous. This topic is not new to me. I've had extensive discussions on this very question with my good friend whose dissertation was on quantum entanglement.

Observably true, you say? It is not observably true that particles exist in two states simultaneously until they are observed. It is an inference. How does the inference make any sense?

[ChrLzs]

21 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

It is not observably true that particles exist in two states simultaneously until they are observed.

???  ???  Oh, OK.....  carry on and I'll leave this for others..  

[SeekTruth]

19 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

???  ???  Oh, OK.....  carry on and I'll leave this for others..  

Odd that a bright chap such as yourself is having trouble understanding plain English. 

Riddle me this: Are particles ever observed with an up-spin and a down-spin simultaneously? Don't think too hard about this one.

[Nobu]

I feel like the multitude of dimension talk is a lot like the infinity talks. Not sure if our current math is capable of tackling either. And before some other  person links me a good book to read on infinity... save it. I’m probably the closest person alive to solving the collatz conjecture. I have a good grasp of what I’m talking about.

[onlookerofmayhem]

49 minutes ago, Nobu said:

I’m probably the closest person alive to solving the collatz conjecture.

Have you created a thread regarding this?

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Nobu said:

I feel like the multitude of dimension talk is a lot like the infinity talks. Not sure if our current math is capable of tackling either. And before some other  person links me a good book to read on infinity... save it. I’m probably the closest person alive to solving the collatz conjecture. I have a good grasp of what I’m talking about.

I agree with others you should start thread and present your theory, this forum has a number of people whose background is Theretical Physics ( String Theory ), along Einsteins theories of Relativity and Special Relativity. It should be an interesting topic to discuss.

[ChrLzs]

I'd be interested in exactly how the Collatz conjecture is relevant...  

I mean, it is a number progression so the potential input does extend (almost) to infinity but I can't see how, even if solved, it tells us anything about the topic...

[SeekTruth]

12 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

Odd that a bright chap such as yourself is having trouble understanding plain English. 

Riddle me this: Are particles ever observed with an up-spin and a down-spin simultaneously? Don't think too hard about this one.

And of course ChrLzs has nothing to offer but hot air blown from you know what. Per the usual.

[zep73]

22 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

In the superposition is has both an  up spin and a down spin? How does this make sense?

It doesn't. It's quantum weirdness.
Like with entanglement, it was the math that first told us about it. The math showed that entanglement was possible, before it was proven. It's the same with the superposition.

Perhaps this will elaborate it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Notice that the spin states are called 0 and 1. Like bits in a standard binary computer.

Edited April 12, 2021 by zep73

[SeekTruth]

21 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It doesn't. It's quantum weirdness.
Like with entanglement, it was the math that first told us about it. The math showed that entanglement was possible, before it was proven. It's the same with the superposition.

Perhaps this will elaborate it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Notice that the spin states are called 0 and 1. Like bits in a standard binary computer.

Would you say that the law of non-contradiction is violated in the event that a particle is simultaneously in the state up-spin and down-spin?

[zep73]

Just now, SeekTruth said:

Would you say that the law of non-contradiction is violated in the event that a particle is simultaneously in the state up-spin and down-spin?

Absolutely. It should be impossible.

[SeekTruth]

Just now, zep73 said:

Absolutely. It should be impossible.

In that case, I reject the notion.

[zep73]

14 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

In that case, I reject the notion.

It is extremely difficult to prove, because any measurement will ruin the result.

But I did find this: https://www.azoquantum.com/News.aspx?newsID=7657

[SeekTruth]

11 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It is extremely difficult to prove, because any measurement will ruin the result.

But I did find this: https://www.azoquantum.com/News.aspx?newsID=7657

I presuppose the law of non-contradiction and will therefore, by default, reject any notion that violates this presupposition. 

 

Perhaps there is a way to conceive of superposition without violating the law of non-contradiction?

Edited April 12, 2021 by SeekTruth

[zep73]

12 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Perhaps there is a way to conceive of superposition without violating the law of non-contradiction?

Perhaps see it as a lump of clay. It's in a potential state, that can go either way. It can become a coffee cup or a tea cup.

[SeekTruth]

42 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Perhaps see it as a lump of clay. It's in a potential state, that can go either way. It can become a coffee cup or a tea cup.

That's all well and good, but a completely different animal than the idea that they are simultaneously in both states.

[zep73]

11 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

That's all well and good, but a completely different animal than the idea that they are simultaneously in both states.

Okay, I have one better, but with a different approach.

Quantum computing is only possible if the superposition is real!

In 2019 NASA and Google performed the world's first quantum computation:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/quantum-supremacy

That's proof of concept.