"When I was very young, in a better frame of mind, I also declared it "spooky action at a distance". (I declared that too in my "particle or wave" designs for microprocessors.) But now that I'm an ordinary guy, I suspect it's just maybe the particles are too fast so that they're in different positions at the same time, so the particles are always there wherever we measure them. It's the actual individual measurement that's the differential here: time.
Or the "hollow" universe concept creates them as looking like the same particle; the movement of particles are exactly the universal cellular automata rules we're observing. It's the same electron-hole concept at even tinier scales.
These statements of course are viewed from particle theory, not in wave (collective particle dynamics) theory."
At the height of my knowledge, I was concealing greater truths in physics so that only the best and real geniuses will be able to rediscover them. There is competition among many groups from many nations: you decide who wins, or you limit the bad guys. You create or accept lesser theories to confound the "other" scientific groups. Or create more exotic theories to show your genius, confounding them in all these better theories. That's from a military strategies point of view.
There's a fellow child genius I consult with or who emerged as a consultant when it comes to microprocessor designs: Dax B. He was Starfleet material too.
I was the Genius who would limit my explanations of scientific principles to just maybe "interference" or "atmospheric pressure."
You need to know the difference between what I called when I was young as "analog" AI and "digital" AI.
I was Wizard I was witholding or confusing knowledge, so analog and digital must have deeper meanings. As well as "interference". I was the Genius who would explain everything in terms of "interference" only, so we must had other meaning for it too.
You're waiting for quantum supremacy to happen.
This is the point presumably at which I should be exhibiting my genius again, achieving quantum supremacy.
But they made me forget, so it won't happen from me. So you'll have to wait.
I just want my billion$ from big tech companies.
By the way, the press release pictures of Intel's 49-qubit chip and Google's 72-qubit Bristlecone are *very* familiar. Probably my designs when I was a young genius. I disliked the Intel design, I think, for AI purposes.
Maybe the way to understanding quantum computers is to understand first the principles behind Field-Programmable Gate Arrays or FPGAs. When we think of "arrays", it's digital. Then it's order-out-of-chaos "analog".
I remember designing FPGAs in one episode of "Star Trek Enterprise" TV series.
Where's your Quantum Computer? (Never mind this; maybe you should not even build one. Because when your AIs and quantum AIs start to infer and predict, it will all be about Me again..)
No comments:
Post a Comment