Re: The Joy of *small* business

On 12/23/24 6:43 AM, D wrote:

  On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.

>
 MAYbe an advantage there ... but maybe NOT. Theists will
 say they don't NEED 'process' or 'corrections' because
 they were magically provided with the RIGHT ANSWER
 long back. They just see us bickering about whether
 2+2 (common conditions) = 4 for a century or two
 when they knew all along.

 True, but I just ignore them. Discussion, except for entertainment or trolling,
is meaningless and a waste of time.
 

I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is lacking?

>
 Occam HAS his uses. However sometimes things ARE complicated.
>
 Read my post here to Mr. Natural about 'negative time'
 findings ......
>
 https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientists-negative-quantum.html

 Ahh... but let's wait and see...
 "The findings, posted on the preprint server arXiv but not yet published in a
peer-reviewed journal, have attracted both global attention and skepticism".

   Oh, I agree there ... but one of the main points was
   that the instrumentation/methods were much improved
   yet STILL showed the mysterious effect (just in better
   detail).
   So, downstream, I expect this is gonna be deemed REAL.
   And it's REALLY weird.
   Seems like every time instrumentation improves by even
   2X then The Science has to leap ahead 10X.

 Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
 the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.

 What is IQ? What is intelligence? We are fumbling around in the dark. Is a human
+ a computer a 200 IQ person? Stanislaw Lem writes in one of his books about
knowledge factories. It was a long time I read it, but it kind of gave me the
impression he is thinking about AI-farms churning out theories and science.

   Beyond a certain point nobody is SURE what "IQ" means.
   It's kind of the problem where you're trying to describe
   yourself - but the very attempt at description ALTERS
   the equation. Very quantum  :-)
   I've met a few people with EXTREME 'IQ' over the years.
   One seemed kinda 'normal', but just had kinda superhuman
   math abilities/perspective. The other two were, well,
   NOT so 'normal' - skittish, borderline autistic,
   'borderline' in general.
   But we're still talking IQ-200 max here. What the hell
   would 300 or 500 look like ??? Note effective intellectual
   ability is not proportional to the IQ score. 120 is MUCH
   more capable than 100.