Just a thought..... John, this has been my contention all along. It exists, but it also does not exist, and everything in between and nothing. It exists in both "known states" of a singular quantum universe, yet is not manifested by either or combination of both alone. Something is possibly missing! But what could it be? In my view, the two universes are entangled with a perfect-state mechanism, possibly of nuon and "dark" - as unobserved - matter proportions and all quanta, which is purely a stimulus-response system. I think it is code to the dynamic co-existence of the reasoning and unreasoning universes. All we see is what we observe. Perhaps we have been following the giant pulley in the sky that has a bone attached to it. And if we have not, why can't we explain a simple thing as why karma realtively-really exists and how it operates, and where creative thought comes from, or what an aura really is in scientific terms, and so on, and so on, and so on? We cannot, because we do not have the full picture yet, do we? The 3-entity system could well form our version of a quantum universe.
ENDOFTHOUGHT > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] SAT and Dynamic Programs of Models > Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:59:35 -0500 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Mahoney via AGI [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > NP-hard means NP-complete or harder. NP-complete means that a solution > > would solve any problem in NP. NP is the class of problems whose answers > > can be verified in time that is a polynomial function of the input size. P > > is the > > class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time. It is widely > > believed > > by everyone except Jim Bromer that P != NP. This belief is not because of > > any > > proof, but because thousands of other people like Jim Bromer who believed > > P = NP failed to find polynomial time solutions to any NP-complete problems > > after years of effort until they were convinced they would be better off if > > they gave up. The time it takes to give up is inversely proportional to the > > person's efforts into studying the math and researching the work of others > > instead of repeating their mistakes. > > > > No, there are others that believe P=NP besides Jim I'm sure some of you have > been following Bolotin's argument from last year: > > https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-astounding-link-between-the-p-np-problem-and-the-quantum-nature-of-universe-7ef5eea6fd7a > > which to me is very interesting and cutting edge IMO. > > John > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
