Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 06 2012,23:20)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2012,00:26)|
| † |
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 06 2012,19:35)|
| † † |
|Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 06 2012,19:15)|
| † † † |
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 06 2012,16:15)|
|You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.|
I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. †It fits the data just as well.
You still don't get it.
It has to do with the variables the algorithm has to work with, which are here literally those for a model for an intelligent entity with a brain. It's only expected that it ends up looking unusually lifelike in an anthropomorphic sort of way.
What happens, is by the time you add standard thrust vector arrows and easiest way to see what it is sensing around it (by drawing pie shaped arcs at its center filled with color as in compound eye) I'm sure your quantum bot will come out at least almost as cute as my creation.
- by mid-babble, you'd forgotten you were responding to a question about string theory, not insects;
- or you think string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain.
This discussion is going so all over physics it's easy to lose track. But that indicates just how much science there is in this theory to have fun with.
And where we train string like bots (but not exactly sure how) to behave like real matter they start off as intelligent, or else they can't "learn" the behavior of anything. You're not supposed to be insulted by how bots sometimes even neural nets are "trained". That's just nuts. Of course string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain. That does not mean they are intelligent, that's just what was trained to produce the behavior. Does not really have eyes, but has what is analogous to senses that see environmental conditions around it, that looks just like an eye when you show it at the center point it sweeps out from up to 360 degrees. Two would be good for 3D axis (at a single X,Y,Z point) just look really cross-eyed most of the time. With some of you here though, that is like expected, from your creation.
Oh, cross-eyed strings. Why didn't you say so earlier? That makes perfect fucking sense.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... ¬†The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG