Ghideon

Is absolute space in your idea the same as a preferred frame or privileged frame? Or something else? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time)

Google may help: When searching for "Douglas Engelbart" "1110010110110101001" the first link* shows the steps required: 2 steps of converting text<>hex Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicleap/comments/4ig4a3/what_the_binary_actually_means_from_the_tedx_talk Side note: Douglas Engelbart was an engineer and inventor and an early computer and Internet pioneer. Founding the field of human–computer interaction resulted in creation of the computer mouse, and the development of hypertext, networked computers, and precursors to graphical user interfaces. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart *) I have not performed or verified the solution I linked to.

The discussion includes too many aspects, I would need several pages to adress this. Maybe if you narrow down the topic to some specific issue? There may be interesting connections to ongoing development and research for instance in software architecture. And if you prefer to discuss the "big picture" then you could remove the details that are unnecessary. Example: If your question is how to support all citizens, regardless of their technical abilities and level of access to digital tools, then details about scanners and paper piles may be left out.

Good addition, that seems true. (Side note: If you were incorrect I think it would cause problems in quantum encryption and I've never seen such problems mentioned. but I would need to do some reading to confirm that)

And, as far as I know, if Bob would postpone his measurement and still try to figure out the result he can only do so by getting the information from Alice. And signals between them are limited by the speed of light, so no faster than light exchange is possible. +1 @joigus.

The physics taught at M.Sc. level, at least where I live, should make it trivial to see that the idea is incorrect. Maybe that explains the lack if interest? Short answer: No I think the presentation also failed both of my suggestions:

Thanks, I might take a look at it! That sounds reasonable, but I need to read more about flowgraph to have a valid opinion*. Recent GPU's have specific features applicable to for instance artificial neural networks, my guess is that OP is suggesting/looking for an architecture that is more generalised. Let's hope they return with some comments and details. *) I've seen reports about using GPU's for graph databases, if that (at least partially) addresses your question. The programming model of GPU allows for some interesting modifications of typical algorithms used in programming a CPU, but that would be a separate thread I think.

This forum is an excellent place for discussions but fails on some of your requirements; you need to have some support or evidence when introducing new ideas that has no connection to established theories or models. If you drop the word "wildly" and focus on formulating thought experiments in a coherent way you may have fruitful discussions with experts here on scienceforums, no need to move on. Anyway, my experience tells me wild* discussions means people who know a topic (physics for instance) quickly loose interest; their knowledge and valuable input is often neglected and they chose to spend their efforts on other things. Your requirements are somewhat mutually exclusive on the forums I'm familiar with. *) WAG, unsupported claims, obviously invalid ideas etc...

I’m curious; what are the advantages? How do the proposed architecture differ from known methods for mitigating the Von Neumann performance bottleneck*? *) if this is what OP wishes to discuss, more details may be required. I have not opened the link.

My only question is why you mix questions with completely invalid claims? Such as this one: It limits the possibility of a fruitful discussion when (possibly interesting) questions are diluted with stuff that lacks evidence and has no connection to mainstream theories.

Yes, if you provide a more detailed description of your idea. But some quick notations: The free electron model predict for instance DC electrical conductivity σ for Ohm's law and the model includes time. Your statement above is not compatible with how conductivity in metals works.

The description is vague but debunking the idea seems rather trivial? For instance Fermi gas and free electron model makes predictions about macroscopic objects. How does for instance electric conductivity work in your model?

Can you show us your analysis of the three-body problem* ? Please explain how your analysis, based on two bodies(?), differs from mainstream science observations and models. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem (edit: or check @joigus N-body problem example below)

There seems to be a fundamental logical flaw with the idea? If "AI"* could do what you seems to believe, then it would never be used to address the problems you describe. The "AI" would instead be used on root causes, to prevent the climate related problems you describe. *) I use "AI" instead of AI. OP seems to use the term for something else than Artificial Intelligence (AI) used in computer science.

No. You have presented a scenario where “AI”* is not applicable. *) currently available technologies & computer science, not something from science fiction

(Emphasis mine) As far as I know, in cosmology Inflation is not the same as Expansion. So You are discussing two different aspects of cosmology, introduced at different times? Expansion; Hubble 1930's Steady State, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle publication: 1948 Inflation; Alan Guth in 1979

Thanks for your reply. I just lost interest in this thread; I am more interested in computer science and (financial) markets than purely political ideas.

Suggestion: Go to the sandbox topic in this forum, there you can learn how to use the forum features. Your idea sounds like a paradox, it requires huge improvements in international affairs, globally and regionally and trust in some organisation that will create this AI. But if that can be achieved there is no need for your proposed AI system anymore, the problem you wish to adress is already solved when establishing the model(s) used in the system. It sounds like you want an improved version of the United Nations* and then let them create a digital, "AI"-based, version of the United Nations. *) Including it's specialised agencies and programmes

Thanks for your reply. Let's assume we have constructed a prototype or candidate AI model that we think is capable of adressing issues of current financial markets*. Who would have the last say on go/no go for such a system on the scale you suggest? My guess: Then, assuming the system passes that hurdle and is up and running. Who would decide who and how the AI is operated? My guess And when there is a disagreement abut whether to trust the AI or not, or to replace or update the model depending on new events (a pandemic for instance) Who has the final say? My conclusion: -The issues you describe falls outside the scope of computer science, the problem is within other domains. -Your proposal about AI will not work, party for the reasons you have already hinted in your posts. This does no in any way say that it is useless to try to use AI or related concepts when establishing policies. But you need a well defined problem and something that could be modelled or parameterised in a way that an AI can be used. *) "AI" as currently available, not some fantasy super advanced future system like in a sci-fi movie. As far as I know, current understanding of for instance complex systems, political systems and economical systems limits our ability to develop mathematical models that an AI could be based on.

Ok. When an idea is tricky to formulate it may help to ask questions instead of posting repetitions? Anyway, here is a quick take on how to formulate a starting point for discussing what the OP maybe is about: Note: The above text is an illustration of what the OP might want to discuss, not actual questions I have. I have no intention to hijack the thread, I'm just curious about the topic; hence this attempt at helping @chrisjones to formulate something that can be discussed.

After reading your repeated parts of text my answer is no: as far as I know it is beyond the limits of current capabilities of AI (machine learning); AI can not yet be applied to something as vaguely described and unclear as the things stated in the opening post.

Capital market, stock market, bond market, ETF, commodities, currency or some other financial market? Or maybe the power market for trading electricity? I'm curious, do you by "AI" mean some generalised model that should work with all kinds of markets?

Defensive wounds.

As far as I know that is generally true, I'm unaware of any battery chemistry that allows for unlimited storage. Self-discharge depends on storage environment, chemistry, brand, temperature (and probably others I have missed). I intentionally neglected all this in my ball-park calculation. Another thing I neglected is that a wrist watch may have functions that temporary draws additional power; backlight, alarm etc. Maybe OP returns with follow-up questions or additional information to take into account...

I agree, a detailed analysis requires more assumptions and/or information from OP. Let’s try to rephrase the answer: under the stated assumptions, constant power usage, and ideal and lossless conditions the current will be below 1 micro ampere.