Quantum Superposition, Simulations, Simulated realities, and other thoughts.

[Neogaia777]

Quite a bit of random information to be dropped here, so be ready? The point is discussion, and to discuss, etc. Some of my thoughts about quantum theories made me think of this, or brought this up, if you want to discuss this scientifically, etc. I guess video games is maybe where I should start, or as to be an example over, or about, etc. Primitive simulated worlds/realities, etc.

State in which that data exists when it is not being rendered, or doesn't need to be being rendered, vs what state that data is in, or needs to be in, when it does or is needing to be rendered. Which only needs to include wherever or whenever the observer is right now observing it.

Observers field of view. Multiple observers. Video games. Multiplayer Games. Simulation theories. Behind and to the sides of the observers, vs in front of, or in field of view. Too taxing on a cpu to render everything all of the time, and also, completely unnecessary.

It only needs to render only what is only observable in those very moments, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc. Space for example. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that this works with all of our other senses as well, like touch for example. A thing might only need to be rendered or register as solid, only in the very moments of, or for as long as we are touching it, or one of our body parts comes into contact with it, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc, and this would apply to each one of each of the observers other senses (total of five) as well, etc. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? Or for that matter did a tree even fall even, etc?

Expectations. We develop a lot of expectations that start going all the way back to when we first start, etc, but that might not be the way that it needs to be, etc, after all, what if it could be different maybe, etc. Senses, and learned assumptions/expectations could be deceiving us from another way it could go/happen/be maybe. Part of being born again could be eliminating some of those assumptions maybe, because maybe it can be different, or changed maybe? Maybe by us just changing our expectations maybe?

If there was a "God" of all of this, would he have put that in our control, or our ability to make happen, just by maybe changing our expectations of what should happen, or be, or what's to come (next) maybe, etc?

Those "expectations" are deeply, deeply ingrained though, might be very much exceedingly difficult to truly try to change them, etc. You also could think you have done it/them, when you really haven't, etc.

Thoughts, or ideas?

Care to discuss?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Quite a bit of random information to be dropped here, so be ready? The point is discussion, and to discuss, etc. Some of my thoughts about quantum theories made me think of this, or brought this up, if you want to discuss this scientifically, etc. I guess video games is maybe where I should start, or as to be an example over, or about, etc. Primitive simulated worlds/realities, etc.

State in which that data exists when it is not being rendered, or doesn't need to be being rendered, vs what state that data is in, or needs to be in, when it does or is needing to be rendered. Which only needs to include wherever or whenever the observer is right now observing it.

Observers field of view. Multiple observers. Video games. Multiplayer Games. Simulation theories. Behind and to the sides of the observers, vs in front of, or in field of view. Too taxing on a cpu to render everything all of the time, and also, completely unnecessary.

It only needs to render only what is only observable in those very moments, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc. Space for example. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that this works with all of our other senses as well, like touch for example. A thing might only need to be rendered or register as solid, only in the very moments of, or for as long as we are touching it, or one of our body parts comes into contact with it, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc, and this would apply to each one of each of the observers other senses (total of five) as well, etc. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? Or for that matter did a tree even fall even, etc?

Expectations. We develop a lot of expectations that start going all the way back to when we first start, etc, but that might not be the way that it needs to be, etc, after all, what if it could be different maybe, etc. Senses, and learned assumptions/expectations could be deceiving us from another way it could go/happen/be maybe. Part of being born again could be eliminating some of those assumptions maybe, because maybe it can be different, or changed maybe? Maybe by us just changing our expectations maybe?

If there was a "God" of all of this, would he have put that in our control, or our ability to make happen, just by maybe changing our expectations of what should happen, or be, or what's to come (next) maybe, etc?

Those "expectations" are deeply, deeply ingrained though, might be very much exceedingly difficult to truly try to change them, etc. You also could think you have done it/them, when you really haven't, etc.

Thoughts, or ideas?

Care to discuss?

Take Care/God Bless.

I believe that science is more and more trying to tell us that this is a simulated reality, but that it's just very, very difficult for us to fully accept that, or see that really. We are so very much ruled by our five senses, and our expectations, that that is very, very difficult to try and alter, and/or change, etc. Many of them go back to from before we are even born even, and start then, some of them, etc.

But what if they could be changed? And what if it is a part of this realities program that the observer is at least capable of altering it or changing it maybe? And is there anything in science that is telling us that maybe?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Quite a bit of random information to be dropped here, so be ready? The point is discussion, and to discuss, etc. Some of my thoughts about quantum theories made me think of this, or brought this up, if you want to discuss this scientifically, etc. I guess video games is maybe where I should start, or as to be an example over, or about, etc. Primitive simulated worlds/realities, etc.

State in which that data exists when it is not being rendered, or doesn't need to be being rendered, vs what state that data is in, or needs to be in, when it does or is needing to be rendered. Which only needs to include wherever or whenever the observer is right now observing it.

Observers field of view. Multiple observers. Video games. Multiplayer Games. Simulation theories. Behind and to the sides of the observers, vs in front of, or in field of view. Too taxing on a cpu to render everything all of the time, and also, completely unnecessary.

It only needs to render only what is only observable in those very moments, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc. Space for example. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that this works with all of our other senses as well, like touch for example. A thing might only need to be rendered or register as solid, only in the very moments of, or for as long as we are touching it, or one of our body parts comes into contact with it, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc, and this would apply to each one of each of the observers other senses (total of five) as well, etc. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? Or for that matter did a tree even fall even, etc?

Expectations. We develop a lot of expectations that start going all the way back to when we first start, etc, but that might not be the way that it needs to be, etc, after all, what if it could be different maybe, etc. Senses, and learned assumptions/expectations could be deceiving us from another way it could go/happen/be maybe. Part of being born again could be eliminating some of those assumptions maybe, because maybe it can be different, or changed maybe? Maybe by us just changing our expectations maybe?

If there was a "God" of all of this, would he have put that in our control, or our ability to make happen, just by maybe changing our expectations of what should happen, or be, or what's to come (next) maybe, etc?

Those "expectations" are deeply, deeply ingrained though, might be very much exceedingly difficult to truly try to change them, etc. You also could think you have done it/them, when you really haven't, etc.

Thoughts, or ideas?

Care to discuss?

Take Care/God Bless.

With video games, those on PC have something called "console commands" by which those with enough skill can change things in the game, and do this by tying into their keyboard, etc. Well, what if we have that ability within this reality to do that, but it was all already put within us? Only we don't need to type into a keyboard, or have a PC, or even understand complex lines of code like a computer programmer does, etc, but all we need to do is change the way we think, and that's it, etc. And that just by changing something like our expectations, we can change some things within this reality? And maybe some things that would even be completely opposite of what we would call normal maybe, within this reality?

I think it's good that we have some very, very primitive versions of this right now, in the forms of like video games and things, as we can "see it" right now, etc. Video games a few years back even allowed for you to see the images as they were still rendering, etc. But not as much now though, as computers have become better, and now have to ability to compute a bit faster now, etc. Still in some you can see it still sometimes though, etc.

This technology has only been being developed over only the last 40 or 50 years, etc. But what if we were to be able to develop it over thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or maybe hundreds of thousands of years? Or what about a million years?

I believe it is our destiny to continue to develop this technology, or handing the ability over to AI to help us with it at some point, and "plugging in" to these realities, etc. They could become so good, or so far advanced after just a realitively short amount of time at some point, that they could become indistinguishable from this, or any reality. But what if it has been already been done by an advanced civilization that came before us, or AI already, and we are already living in that, or those realities? Is it really so inconceivable?

We have our five senses, and our expectations in this reality, that pretty much dominate/dictate this reality. Space, down to physical matter and material is mostly empty. Like 99.9999% empty, etc. So is it really so inconceivable really? Then we have quantum superposition, which behaves very much like data in a computer program, or video game, or simulated reality really, etc. What if the vastness of space was on purpose. so that when we look out at it, it is just for us to consider that vastness, and expand our minds really? But it's really just a backdrop that we may never reach really?

What if the true mystery was here, and within ourselves, and this own simulated reality? Maybe at some point in our future evolution we become aware of this maybe, and even aware of the fact that we can change or alter this reality maybe even from the exact opposite from what was previously considered normal maybe? What if we were given that by some kind of "God" or creator of this reality maybe?

Right now, our expectations and our five senses dominate us, but what if those were not ever the real truths about this reality?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

With video games, those on PC have something called "console commands" by which those with enough skill can change things in the game, and do this by tying into their keyboard, etc. Well, what if we have that ability within this reality to do that, but it was all already put within us? Only we don't need to type into a keyboard, or have a PC, or even understand complex lines of code like a computer programmer does, etc, but all we need to do is change the way we think, and that's it, etc. And that just by changing something like our expectations, we can change some things within this reality? And maybe some things that would even be completely opposite of what we would call normal maybe, within this reality?

I think it's good that we have some very, very primitive versions of this right now, in the forms of like video games and things, as we can "see it" right now, etc. Video games a few years back even allowed for you to see the images as they were still rendering, etc. But not as much now though, as computers have become better, and now have to ability to compute a bit faster now, etc. Still in some you can see it still sometimes though, etc.

This technology has only been being developed over only the last 40 or 50 years, etc. But what if we were to be able to develop it over thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or maybe hundreds of thousands of years? Or what about a million years?

I believe it is our destiny to continue to develop this technology, or handing the ability over to AI to help us with it at some point, and "plugging in" to these realities, etc. They could become so good, or so far advanced after just a realitively short amount of time at some point, that they could become indistinguishable from this, or any reality. But what if it has been already been done by an advanced civilization that came before us, or AI already, and we are already living in that, or those realities? Is it really so inconceivable?

We have our five senses, and our expectations in this reality, that pretty much dominate/dictate this reality. Space, down to physical matter and material is mostly empty. Like 99.9999% empty, etc. So is it really so inconceivable really? Then we have quantum superposition, which behaves very much like data in a computer program, or video game, or simulated reality really, etc. What if the vastness of space was on purpose. so that when we look out at it, it is just for us to consider that vastness, and expand our minds really? But it's really just a backdrop that we may never reach really?

What if the true mystery was here, and within ourselves, and this own simulated reality? Maybe at some point in our future evolution we become aware of this maybe, and even aware of the fact that we can change or alter this reality maybe even from the exact opposite from what was previously considered normal maybe? What if we were given that by some kind of "God" or creator of this reality maybe?

Right now, our expectations and our five senses dominate us, but what if those were not ever the real truths about this reality?

Take Care/God Bless.

Some of you may be familiar with my beliefs about determinism, and the deterministic nature of this reality, so as a disclaimer, I believe whatever realization you or I may come to, will already have been a part of what was already determined in this reality, etc.

But now I'd like to talk about the beauty of that actually, and this lies in the fact that none of knows what this is supposed to come to, or what is supposed to happen next, or what is supposed to be, etc. So, it could be a part of that/this predetermined universe/reality that you have these thoughts, and come to some of these realizations really. And also that you maybe decide to try to tap in to your ability to change, or try to alter or change something in this reality.

It will already have always been known by the One who determined it, but none of us knows our future, or our future destiny in this reality.

God Bless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Some of you may be familiar with my beliefs about determinism, and the deterministic nature of this reality, so as a disclaimer, I believe whatever realization you or I may come to, will already have been a part of what was already determined in this reality, etc.

Purely my thoughts on the matter....

Theological Determinism leads to doubt. This is what I get from your posts. Trying to answer a question that is based on a false assumption introduced to Christians by Augustine and widely disseminated by Calvin can only cause one to walk the path of destruction.
Determinism actually cancels out reality. Think about it. If it is "real" it is free from conformity. It is authentic and genuine. It is not fake or artificial. Determinism is counter intuitive because it lacks all things in reality. Video games and the like are determined which may fascinate someone because of its artificial qualities.
Consider a different approach by seeking the other view.
Blessings.

 

[Neogaia777]

Purely my thoughts on the matter....

Theological Determinism leads to doubt. This is what I get from your posts. Trying to answer a question that is based on a false assumption introduced to Christians by Augustine and widely disseminated by Calvin can only cause one to walk the path of destruction.
Determinism actually cancels out reality. Think about it. If it is "real" it is free from conformity. It is authentic and genuine. It is not fake or artificial. Determinism is counter intuitive because it lacks all things in reality. Video games and the like are determined which may fascinate someone because of its artificial qualities.
Consider a different approach by seeking the other view.
Blessings.

I don't base or accept the truths that I believe in or accept because I either want or don't want them to either be true or else not true.

Truth cannot be based on that, and nor can it be based on how you feel or don't feel about it either, etc.

You be blessed also.

God Bless.

Also, determinism is not the point of this thread, but everything else I was talking about in the OP is.

I only talked about determinism a little just in case some are aware of those beliefs about me, or they saw any of the other conversations I have going on right now in some other threads.

God Bless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I don't base or accept the truths that I believe in or accept because I either want or don't want them to either be true or not true.

Truth cannot be based on that, and nor can it be based on how you feel or don't feel about it either, etc.

You be blessed also.

God Bless.

Ok. What evidence do you have to prove that your position, determination, is true ?

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok. What evidence do you have to prove that your position, determination, is true ?

In this thread, I am not making any determination(s) (yet), but I was just wanting to discuss what was brought in the OP, and some of my other posts following after it so far in this thread.

Determinism has nothing at all to do with it really, so I maybe shouldn't have even brought it up really, etc.. If you want to talk about determinism, then I will probably just point you to another thread.

I wanted to discuss things like quantum superposition, and simulations, and simulated realities, and how we can maybe affect them maybe, and other things like that so far in this thread, etc. And I do not, I repeat do not, want to discuss determinism in this thread.

God Bless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In this thread, I am not making any determination(s) (yet), but I was just wanting to discuss what was brought in the OP, and some of my other posts following after it so far in this thread.

Determinism has nothing at all to do with it really, so I maybe shouldn't have even brought it up really, etc.. If you want to talk about determinism, then I will probably just point you to another thread.

I wanted to discuss things like quantum superposition, and simulations, and simulated realities, and how we can maybe affect them maybe, and other things like that so far in this thread, etc. And I do not, I repeat do not, want to discuss determinism in this thread.

God Bless.

Got it! I am a syfy fan and simulated realities are quite entertaining.

 

[Neogaia777]

Got it! I am a syfy fan and simulated realities are quite entertaining.

So, what do you think? Or what are your thoughts about it?

About quantum superposition maybe for example? Isn't it, or can't it, not be similar to like how in some of the simulated realities we create, be similar to the state of that data when it needs to rendered (or manifested) versus when it maybe doesn't need to be rendered (or manifested) maybe, etc?

Some of quantum theory suggests or states that everything is potentially everywhere until the very moment it needs to be seen, tasted, touched, smelled, or heard by one or more of our five senses, and is only "real", or is only manifested, or can be only perceived by us as coming from any one single (or more) person, place, or thing, or source, only in those very moments that it needs to be by a quote/unquote "observer", and then after that, immediately goes right back into a state of superposition again, etc.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about that maybe, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So, what do you think? Or what are your thoughts about it?

About quantum superposition maybe for example? Isn't it, or can't it, not be similar to like how in some of the simulated realities we create, be similar to the state of that data when it needs to rendered (or manifested) versus when it maybe doesn't need to be rendered (or manifested) maybe, etc?

God Bless.

Ok. I'm not grasping this at all but here is something that did!

Quantum Superposition and Simulated Realities: A Complex Comparison

Your intuition about a potential connection between quantum superposition and simulated realities is intriguing, and it's a question that has sparked much philosophical and scientific debate.
Quantum Superposition
In quantum mechanics, superposition is a principle that allows a quantum system to exist in multiple states simultaneously until it's measured. This means a particle, like an electron, can be in two places at once or have multiple spins at the same time. It's a counterintuitive concept that defies our classical understanding of the world.
Simulated Realities
In the realm of computer simulations, we often deal with vast amounts of data that may not be actively rendered or processed at all times. For instance, in a video game, only the objects within the player's immediate view are fully rendered. Objects in the distance or behind walls might exist in a less defined state, ready to be fully realized as needed.
The Analogy
While there are some similarities, it's crucial to understand the fundamental differences:
* Physical Reality vs. Simulated Reality: Quantum superposition is a property of the physical world, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Simulated realities, on the other hand, are artificial constructs created within a computer system.
* Quantum States vs. Data States: Quantum states are inherently probabilistic and can only be determined through measurement. Simulated data, while it may not be fully rendered, exists in a definite state, even if it's not currently being displayed.
* Observer Effect: In quantum mechanics, the act of observation collapses the wave function, forcing the system into a definite state. In simulated realities, the act of viewing or interacting with an object triggers its rendering, but this doesn't fundamentally alter its underlying data.
Conclusion
While the concept of superposition and the idea of data existing in multiple states until it's needed might seem similar, they operate on fundamentally different principles. Quantum superposition is a bizarre and fascinating aspect of the quantum world, while simulated realities are human-created constructs that mimic certain aspects of reality.
It's an interesting thought experiment to ponder the relationship between these two concepts, but it's important to remember that they are distinct and operate on different levels of reality.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok. I'm not grasping this at all but here is something that did!

Quantum Superposition and Simulated Realities: A Complex Comparison

Your intuition about a potential connection between quantum superposition and simulated realities is intriguing, and it's a question that has sparked much philosophical and scientific debate.
Quantum Superposition
In quantum mechanics, superposition is a principle that allows a quantum system to exist in multiple states simultaneously until it's measured. This means a particle, like an electron, can be in two places at once or have multiple spins at the same time. It's a counterintuitive concept that defies our classical understanding of the world.
Simulated Realities
In the realm of computer simulations, we often deal with vast amounts of data that may not be actively rendered or processed at all times. For instance, in a video game, only the objects within the player's immediate view are fully rendered. Objects in the distance or behind walls might exist in a less defined state, ready to be fully realized as needed.
The Analogy
While there are some similarities, it's crucial to understand the fundamental differences:
* Physical Reality vs. Simulated Reality: Quantum superposition is a property of the physical world, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Simulated realities, on the other hand, are artificial constructs created within a computer system.
* Quantum States vs. Data States: Quantum states are inherently probabilistic and can only be determined through measurement. Simulated data, while it may not be fully rendered, exists in a definite state, even if it's not currently being displayed.
* Observer Effect: In quantum mechanics, the act of observation collapses the wave function, forcing the system into a definite state. In simulated realities, the act of viewing or interacting with an object triggers its rendering, but this doesn't fundamentally alter its underlying data.
Conclusion
While the concept of superposition and the idea of data existing in multiple states until it's needed might seem similar, they operate on fundamentally different principles. Quantum superposition is a bizarre and fascinating aspect of the quantum world, while simulated realities are human-created constructs that mimic certain aspects of reality.
It's an interesting thought experiment to ponder the relationship between these two concepts, but it's important to remember that they are distinct and operate on different levels of reality.

AI at it's finest.

You should probably know I added to my post, etc.

And it may include some things that AI didn't include, or maybe forgot, or maybe flat out rejected.

And I did ask for your thoughts also, and not an AI's, cause I could have asked it myself, etc.

But I am grateful that you took the time to ask AI, and/or look it up though.

AI is probably afraid that you will confuse the two realities if you truly began to realize just how very similar they are, etc.

AI is also most usually required to add "certain disclaimers" when it is maybe about to lead you down some quote/unquote "dangerous roads", etc.

But I did mark your post "informative" either way though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Quite a bit of random information to be dropped here, so be ready? The point is discussion, and to discuss, etc. Some of my thoughts about quantum theories made me think of this, or brought this up, if you want to discuss this scientifically, etc. I guess video games is maybe where I should start, or as to be an example over, or about, etc. Primitive simulated worlds/realities, etc.

State in which that data exists when it is not being rendered, or doesn't need to be being rendered, vs what state that data is in, or needs to be in, when it does or is needing to be rendered. Which only needs to include wherever or whenever the observer is right now observing it.

Observers field of view. Multiple observers. Video games. Multiplayer Games. Simulation theories. Behind and to the sides of the observers, vs in front of, or in field of view. Too taxing on a cpu to render everything all of the time, and also, completely unnecessary.

It only needs to render only what is only observable in those very moments, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc. Space for example. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that this works with all of our other senses as well, like touch for example. A thing might only need to be rendered or register as solid, only in the very moments of, or for as long as we are touching it, or one of our body parts comes into contact with it, and not when it doesn't, or doesn't need to be, etc, and this would apply to each one of each of the observers other senses (total of five) as well, etc. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? Or for that matter did a tree even fall even, etc?

Expectations. We develop a lot of expectations that start going all the way back to when we first start, etc, but that might not be the way that it needs to be, etc, after all, what if it could be different maybe, etc. Senses, and learned assumptions/expectations could be deceiving us from another way it could go/happen/be maybe. Part of being born again could be eliminating some of those assumptions maybe, because maybe it can be different, or changed maybe? Maybe by us just changing our expectations maybe?

If there was a "God" of all of this, would he have put that in our control, or our ability to make happen, just by maybe changing our expectations of what should happen, or be, or what's to come (next) maybe, etc?

Those "expectations" are deeply, deeply ingrained though, might be very much exceedingly difficult to truly try to change them, etc. You also could think you have done it/them, when you really haven't, etc.

Thoughts, or ideas?

Care to discuss?

Take Care/God Bless.

Any chance you could narrow the topic down a bit?

I'm familiar with simulation theories. I'm familiar with quantum superposition (as one outside the field can be). I'm also familiar with the concept of conceptual-based reality.

It's a lot to shoot at in one go though....and I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss, specifically.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok. I'm not grasping this at all but here is something that did!

Quantum Superposition and Simulated Realities: A Complex Comparison

Your intuition about a potential connection between quantum superposition and simulated realities is intriguing, and it's a question that has sparked much philosophical and scientific debate.
Quantum Superposition
In quantum mechanics, superposition is a principle that allows a quantum system to exist in multiple states simultaneously until it's measured. This means a particle, like an electron, can be in two places at once or have multiple spins at the same time. It's a counterintuitive concept that defies our classical understanding of the world.
Simulated Realities
In the realm of computer simulations, we often deal with vast amounts of data that may not be actively rendered or processed at all times. For instance, in a video game, only the objects within the player's immediate view are fully rendered. Objects in the distance or behind walls might exist in a less defined state, ready to be fully realized as needed.
The Analogy
While there are some similarities, it's crucial to understand the fundamental differences:
* Physical Reality vs. Simulated Reality: Quantum superposition is a property of the physical world, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Simulated realities, on the other hand, are artificial constructs created within a computer system.
* Quantum States vs. Data States: Quantum states are inherently probabilistic and can only be determined through measurement. Simulated data, while it may not be fully rendered, exists in a definite state, even if it's not currently being displayed.
* Observer Effect: In quantum mechanics, the act of observation collapses the wave function, forcing the system into a definite state. In simulated realities, the act of viewing or interacting with an object triggers its rendering, but this doesn't fundamentally alter its underlying data.
Conclusion
While the concept of superposition and the idea of data existing in multiple states until it's needed might seem similar, they operate on fundamentally different principles. Quantum superposition is a bizarre and fascinating aspect of the quantum world, while simulated realities are human-created constructs that mimic certain aspects of reality.
It's an interesting thought experiment to ponder the relationship between these two concepts, but it's important to remember that they are distinct and operate on different levels of reality.

I was really impressed with this answer before I saw it was AI written.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I was really impressed with this answer before I saw it was AI written.

Ya...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ya...

Seriously....I was thinking "look at the big brain on Maria".

Ask it a question for me....

If it takes 3 hours to dry 3 towels on a clothes line....how long does it take to dry 6 towels?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Seriously....I was thinking "look at the big brain on Maria".

Ask it a question for me....

If it takes 3 hours to dry 3 towels on a clothes line....how long does it take to dry 6 towels?

Answer..
If it takes 3 hours to dry 3 towels, then it takes 1 hour to dry 1 towel (3 hours / 3 towels = 1 hour/towel).
Therefore, to dry 6 towels, it would take 6 hours (6 towels * 1 hour/towel = 6 hours).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Answer..
If it takes 3 hours to dry 3 towels, then it takes 1 hour to dry 1 towel (3 hours / 3 towels = 1 hour/towel).
Therefore, to dry 6 towels, it would take 6 hours (6 towels * 1 hour/towel = 6 hours).

Not that bright huh? It thought it was doing math. They haven't quite gotten the lateral thinking down yet....that model categorizes words but doesn't understand them.

 

[sjastro]

Not that bright huh? It thought it was doing math. They haven't quite gotten the lateral thinking down yet....that model categorizes words but doesn't understand them.

Not all LLMs are dumb.

​

In another thread this version came up with a brilliant solution in showing the speed of light in two opposite directions must be same or the cosmic radiation background would be highly anisotropic at 0 degrees and 180 degrees relative to the observer.
I would never had thought up this solution and neither did an astrophysicist I posed the solution to.

 

[Neogaia777]

Any chance you could narrow the topic down a bit?

I'm familiar with simulation theories. I'm familiar with quantum superposition (as one outside the field can be). I'm also familiar with the concept of conceptual-based reality.

It's a lot to shoot at in one go though....and I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss, specifically.

Whatever is on your mind about the subject really. I'm seeking to leave it pretty open in this thread really.

Take Care/God Bless.