1. In that case those that were adopted tended to be the cheaper and more ubiquitous technologies, ie, at a biological level just more calorically cheaper to adopt and perhaps efficient to maintain.
2. VC and general funding, ie supporting an entity, is a feature of evolution.
I guess I expected better of HN but it seems people don't realize that nothing we can do will stop evolution and everything we do is just a feature of it.
And entities that become too great and harmful to other entities (monopolistic) get challenged, even if they can provide some good, and from that challenge they sometimes get parasitized as well. Business competition, therefore human behavior, is natural no matter what way you want to politicize it.
So is this another blow for the free will argument based on quantum entanglement that some posited was happening in the brain? It seems this is another nail in the coffin leaving very few arguments other than mostly solipsistic ones.
I don't know about the free will argument, but this research doesn't really have anything to do with, for example, the possibility of stable entanglement between Posner molecules.
Beyond that, applications of quantum information theory and other quantum tools now extend beyond physics: there's no requirement that something be based on a physically quantum system for it to be useful modeled by quantum tools.
All in all, there are lot of ways to use quantum/quantum-like/post-quantum models now, both within physics and outside of it. Quantum stuff just isn't as monolithic as many orthodox physicists would suggest.
You can't use it outside of physics, because the combination of digital computers and human brains this hypothetical stuff runs on is in physics. GR (general relativity) + objective collapse (re. quantum physics) does not give you enough for the high-temperature speedups you want.
I spoke of "physics" first and foremost as a scientific paradigm. It's a time-honored variety of applied mathematics.
The map is not the territory, regardless of how accurately its models describe reality. The standard model is great, don't get me wrong, but it's still a map, one of many.
"Physical" models are no longer the only context where quantum tools are relevant or useful. Look into Jerome Busemeyer if you want to learn more.
Very interesting, thank you for the scientist reference.
Looking at Wikipedia I found that "...the identification of quantum structures in cognitive phenomena does not presuppose the existence of microscopic quantum processes in the human brain.". This highlights your comment.
Yes, that's why I spoke of GR + objective collapse. GR + objective collapse is not the territory, most people including Penrose will tell you that. What some of his readers apparently don't get is that he supports GR + objective collapse only to the extent that there's "only one true objective world" (because he likes that for aesthetic reasons), and then immediately turns around and rejects it because there's no space for free will.
Wonder if it says anything against the idea that the whole universe has to be considered as a gigantic entangled quantum state, and that even gravity might arise from that entanglement?
The free will argument has always been junk though because it's based on a bait-and-switch: "quantum mechanics is random, and therefore the future is not predictable with certainty" gets turned around into "so I have free independent will".
You should be able to see the problem: random events are not free will, they're random. The only thing it concludes is that some part of your perceived decision making is no longer predictable - it doesn't mean "you" are in charge of it somehow.
My credentials are: I really like reading and watching scientific fiction.
I think the idea of free will and quantum randomness is that the randomness can be influenced by :magic: something else :magic:, e.g., a soul/spirit/diety.
Combining any of wave theory, quantum entanglement, quantum randomness, and string theory and you've got all sorts of fun ways to attempt to justify the idea of free will.
(not taking sides on free will here, I'm just stating there are nearly infinite reasons for it's existence that will be made)
I didn't say they can't be theories. I don't think Penrose ever got that far though. There theoretically were some measurements that would distinguish the idea, but since it was attached to quantum gravity the math was never worked out.
I feel like a browser is lacking some other prerequisites that disqualifies it from being a good example in this case. At least my browser doesn't claim to be conscious.
Free will doesn’t make sense in any case. Either your will is causally determined, or there is a truly random component, which however doesn’t bring you any closer to influencing your own will.
What if it's the other way around: the universe is part of you. Also consider that determinism can't exist without free will, as darkness cannot exist without light, or warmth can't exist without cold. They're mutually dependent on each other.
That's what immediately came to mind when reading OP's comment. He's basically describing the action of perturbing a system just enough with a weak force that it 'innoculates', for lack of a better word, itself against similar but stronger forces.
It’s also seems like it’d be commonsense for judges to know that and have meal and snack strategies to account for it. To determine what the real effect is then you need to establish it empirically and they haven’t.
If judgery is like any other field, they're overbooked and burnt out. I imagine it's like medicine. In other words, there is no room for a meal strategy.
Is it implied anywhere? That's a feature I'd love and also why I haven't bothered delving into LLMs very much; I didn't know there were any that could locally index your library and train on that data. I'd love to ask it a question and have it reference my local ebook library.
They do have some computer-based mags in their huge database [0]. It's nice to see them still doing their thing, it's an incredible project and goes back decades. I used to scan for them almost fifteen years ago; just the website itself makes me feel nostalgic now, let alone the gaming mags.
If we're allowed to use computing analogies here, would it be fair to say the old model is more like how we view a standard CPU and the new model is more like a FPGA? Where the old model viewed genes in a more classic reductionist approach as CPUs, arranged and static logic waiting for input from the environment and impressing on the environment in such a deterministic way. While the newer model analogy, genes act as an FPGA, an array of gates with potential to adapt to input imposed upon them with this bi-directional synchronicity of environment impressing on genes and genes therefore impressing on environment?
It seems as fields mature we move further away from classic reductionism and encompass more a holistic approach, a path gravitating towards objectivity which I find interesting from a philosophical perspective.
For those old enough to program on punch cards you could say that is closer. We load the program into ram and then the env can and often does modify the program on the fly and we do dumb thing like use the current line number to save a byte because dividing by 17 is “good enough”. Most cards are functional and many cards do double or triple duty to save space. So a bug in one card can subtly break three wildly different spots. Analogies break down of course as in biology it all executes at the same time which is why the micro services or lamdas that can be scaled up or down have been my go to. And you can even inject external events into your lambda systems.
And for anyone familiar with lisp, code is data, data is code. For modern coders you can think that it has a billion feature flags you can also flip on and off rather than rewriting the code on the fly
Ah, 2012, not surprised. Ad-served malware seemed more common in those days. Even in the early days of reddit, it had an episode where one of their third-party ads infected users. I don't recall it being very malicious but it definitely made me button down on my defense of ad-blockers.
2. VC and general funding, ie supporting an entity, is a feature of evolution.
I guess I expected better of HN but it seems people don't realize that nothing we can do will stop evolution and everything we do is just a feature of it.
reply