3
3
0
I find some meaning in this article. Others may find entirely different meaning, or no meaning:
The present as "a haze of vagueness" at the quantum scale? It is common knowledge that measuring time on the quantum scale is not possible with conventional methods. A "potential solution" is considered to be found in the shape of quantum fog.
Quantum fog. Interesting to consider that on a larger scale that is no different than the fog of war, or the fog of anything, like collective and individual decision making - especially when there is no time for indecisiveness, but indecisiveness is creating a "haze of vagueness" in the present. Quantum fog is a matter of the present past future existing simultaneously.
Is the aim of using A.I. on quantum computers to eliminate human haze of vagueness in the present that perhaps sometimes exists though not always? Is assuming human haze of vagueness based on assuming that A.I. (programmed and/or self-learning), is "faster" thug more trustworthy than human thought?
I maintain that quantum timelessness has always been part of human thought. Some may consider that to be a condition that is faster than what we have learned is the speed limit of light; a reality that results in the past present future existing simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the speed of light has also more or less been extrapolated to be the speed limit of human insight/thought/consciousness. The speed of linear A.I. , imho, can not compete with the nature of timelessness that is part of human insight/thought/consciousness.
The fact that the concepts being discussed will be applied to quantum computing which will increasingly be applied to weaponry systems, whatever else quantum computing is used for, thus, imho, creates interest in the concepts being discussed as both scientific and political issues, since application and use of weaponry is a political issue.
The present as "a haze of vagueness" at the quantum scale? It is common knowledge that measuring time on the quantum scale is not possible with conventional methods. A "potential solution" is considered to be found in the shape of quantum fog.
Quantum fog. Interesting to consider that on a larger scale that is no different than the fog of war, or the fog of anything, like collective and individual decision making - especially when there is no time for indecisiveness, but indecisiveness is creating a "haze of vagueness" in the present. Quantum fog is a matter of the present past future existing simultaneously.
Is the aim of using A.I. on quantum computers to eliminate human haze of vagueness in the present that perhaps sometimes exists though not always? Is assuming human haze of vagueness based on assuming that A.I. (programmed and/or self-learning), is "faster" thug more trustworthy than human thought?
I maintain that quantum timelessness has always been part of human thought. Some may consider that to be a condition that is faster than what we have learned is the speed limit of light; a reality that results in the past present future existing simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the speed of light has also more or less been extrapolated to be the speed limit of human insight/thought/consciousness. The speed of linear A.I. , imho, can not compete with the nature of timelessness that is part of human insight/thought/consciousness.
The fact that the concepts being discussed will be applied to quantum computing which will increasingly be applied to weaponry systems, whatever else quantum computing is used for, thus, imho, creates interest in the concepts being discussed as both scientific and political issues, since application and use of weaponry is a political issue.
Scientists Found an Entirely New Way of Measuring Time
Posted from sciencealert.com
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
Posted 3 y ago
Excellent Science Share, SGT Mary G.!!! Sometimes I think we are all in a quantum FOG, but more especially, radical people in today's environment!
(4)
Comment
(0)
Posted 3 y ago
Interesting juxtoposition of philosophy and therotical sciences.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT Mary G.
3 y
CWO4 Terrence Clark Thanks. Everything is connected in some way or another. Lol. Having noted the work of a number of theoretical physicists, can't help but notice that theoretical science has to be understood universally . . . and until all the boxes are ticked so the words and numbers match and agree (e.g. philosophy and math) which contributes to universality of understanding, across the board, then the work does not move past being theoretical. I figure every little effort might (or might not!) contribute. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Right?
(1)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next

Theoretical Physics
Time
Defense
Computing
Weapons
