dont listen to your common sense.
about P vs NP, Aaronson says, "We have a pretty sophisticated idea of why we have no idea". Chazelle says, "To say that we're nowhere near resolving P vs NP is a safe prophecy," and "The truth is, no one has a clue". ha ha ha, about NP-complete problems, "Always basking in the spotlight, they are famously difficult, impossibly hard to satisfy, and—if their resilience is any guide—quite pleased with the attention." -Bernard Chazelle. -ive been hearing (reading) this a lot lately, and it interests me. because it is such an important question, and so famous, and so widely talked about, so widely studied, if no one has a clue, it makes it an attractive problem. any amount of creativity seems an advantage in such a situation, i feel at least mildly creative, so i feel at least mildly motivated.
probabilistically checkable proofs? zero-knowledge proofs? automated theorem checking? how about theorem finding? do we know if P vs NP is an NP problem? so if no one has a clue how to go about proving P vs NP why is that? what is proving something? its just taking one thing you know and transforming it into another thing you know. or taking one thing you know and transforming it into something you know isnt something else. could genetic algorithms make any progress? could they perhaps be used to discover new techniques to be used in proofs? that sounds like quite a challenge to be honest, but i know little about these things.
i love these terms Nicholas Gurewitch uses: 'perfectly strange' and 'score another point for whimsy'
the only real problems are things we call problems. the signifier is not the signified.
oh shit thats terrible: "im putting the 'sensual' back in 'nonconsensual' ". "spontaneous camping".
"we'll never make it out of here alive." they didnt figure that out a long time ago? i think i knew that by age eleven. its actually a coherent definition for 'life'. nothing living here (this place called reality) can leave alive; it just isnt allowed.
crime is not breaking the law but getting caught. ha, even in high level math my intuition is misleading. if my intuition isnt right in complicated math, or physics, and it certainly isnt right with people, then what good is it? sneaky trick from math department: "it has to do with a crazy function" -dr Wolf. and holy crap he wasnt kidding! the Dirac delta function, very peculiar, i must learn more.
etablish your status. mental coup d'éta.
we take our pillow fighting seriously. defecting from the human species. crime organized. once upon a time, we had secrets. censored - seems the best parts always missing. "used to always _______". she walked so fast, and then I heard the siren, the deafening howl that told us that the end of the world was due in a few hours. we all stopped.
i want to write incomplete sentences. or should that read: i want to write incomplete. but no one ever writes sentences with ends but no beginnings, its always beginnings with no ends. maybe its harder to do the opposite. or maybe its easier to cut yourself off. its easier to start a thought and not finish it. its easier to speak an idea and trail off. want to write incomplete sentences. to write incomplete sentences. write incomplete sentences. incomplete sentences. "hey, sentence fragment is a sentence fragment!"
dont listen to your common sense.
"Thus certain bombs were designed to destroy an entire large city even if dropped five to ten kilometers from its centre." what drugs were we doing? LEADERS OF THE MOST ADVANCED NATIONS ON EARTH OKAYED THESE THINGS. WERE THEY FUCKING INSANE? 4.5 billion years of being programmed to fight for our survival, and now we dont have to. after a few hundred years of rapid technological development, and societal changes, we no longer have to (practically). isnt anyone considering these things? they seem vastly important, influential to our personal lives. we have all these personal conflicts and mental problems, and no one knows why. maybe its something simple, something stupid. maybe we ought to be breaking things. maybe we ought to destroy something.
i like these things. i ought to work more on them more often.
i am beginning to obsess over P vs NP. i think about it as i fall asleep. im not intelligent, merely knowledgeable. it concerns me because its further from physics than i have strayed in a long time. i think im still more interested in quantum computing, but i dont know, computing in general is becoming a very interesting subject, undoubtedly something i would need a good grasp of if researching quantum computing specifically, but dammit im rambling. ill figure it out, no worries.
watching the world rotate.
my mom asked if i believed in love, and i changed the subject. its not that i dont believe in love, i just dont believe in it the way she means. do i believe that animals evolved in such a way that intelligence eventually became a more valuable trait then physical adaptation? yes. its the difference between a machine physically built to complete a given task, and a computer programmed to complete a task. the latter can be adapted to do other things. do i think that the necessity of 'programming' these more intelligent creatures necessitated increased time and concern for them? yes. children need a lot of guidance and parenting (programming) to know how to eat, behave, cooperate, build, survive. do i believe that this increased importance of training their young leads to an importance on the parents ability to stay together, and care for their young? yes. it seems clear that society is integral to human survival. do i think that all of these evolutionary consequences could be grouped together and called love? pretty much. i know that that kills the idea. girls dont want you to ask if you can kiss them, they want to be kissed. but thats not love, thats romance. thats knowing what to do and doing it. its being natural, and if theres one thing i dont 'feel', its natural. by the way, i use the word 'believe' in the sense that these events, such as evolution and the causes and effects involved in these events, they seem reasonable to me. i accept them as plausible.
so what do i think about love? i think that people can care for each other, and enjoy one anothers company, mentally or physically, (or maybe some other way i havent thought about?), and i think thats all that matters. and if you want i will call that love. i dont think anything else is needed for these concepts.
the reason my mom asked was because i told her i was a strict physicalist, and that i believe all the mental is merely an illusion resulting from the physical reality underneath it. but i dont mean to imply by 'illusion' that mental reality isnt 'real'. im here, i dont want to die. im having fun, mostly. i enjoy life, regardless of what i believe (read: find plausible) the underlying causes of my consciousness (for that matter, my existence) are. whether you are a physicalist, a dualist or a spiritualist, the results are the same: we are alive, we are in these bodies for a relatively brief period of time, there is nothing we can do to change those facts; we ought to try to enjoy it.
i should start including disclaimers on everything i write. ill need to consult my council first...
No comments:
Post a Comment