Move over God, the Universe is much bigger than a few books of short-stories based on Paganisms.

Anton Petrov delivers with this 15mins of very informative Super Computers and their (known) Universe.

Note: A Neurosurgeon once proved that the images of the Universe are 'similar' to the inside of a human brain.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=anton+petrov&&view=detail&mid=63E3E22690D5544FF84463E3E22690D5544FF844&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Danton%2Bpetrov%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

Speaking of computer simulations, what if we're actually living in one?

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Super computers, even those with AI. have to first be programmed. So it depends on the coder.

I wouldn't be surprised one day if conspiracists say everything that NASA is pumping out about the Universe is all FAKE computer illusions to manipulate people.

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA 'does' fake footage to pump up revenue fundings. Suddenly heaps of 'earth-like' worlds discovered (but like a carrot on a stick, unreachable)... but so far away, would be hard to prove wrong.

Our technology is still a manifestation of our perceptions and earth-bound perceptions. There could be another 42 levels of seeing the Universe, that we can't perceive yet.

Maybe, if we looked at the universe through the eyes of a Mantis Shrimp - we might actually see thousands of Aliens just living outside our atmosphere. :D "Dang! The humans have found us."

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2022 at 6:02pm:

Super computers, even those with AI. have to first be programmed. So it depends on the coder.

Time to subject yourself to a little reading on GENETIC ALGORITHMS.

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 13^th, 2022 at 4:15pm:

Time to subject yourself to a little reading on GENETIC ALGORITHMS.

Why? Because genetics can show a minimum population requirement? Not shown. As long as there are two, mostly of different sexes, they can regenerate. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2022 at 5:10pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 13th, 2022 at 4:15pm: Time to subject yourself to a little reading on GENETIC ALGORITHMS. Why? Because genetics can show a minimum population requirement? Not shown. As long as there are two, mostly of different sexes, they can regenerate. ;)

Why do I bother ?

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization problems based on a natural selection process that mimics biological evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 7:54am:

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization problems based on a natural selection process that mimics biological evolution.

And yet, as I pointed out, it hasn't been shown to be true. ::)

"We assume here that the problem is one of minimization, but the modifications necessary for a maximization problem are nearly always obvious."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226462334_Genetic_Algorithms/link/00b7d52190778a6fce000000/download

So you make an assumption and try to prove an assumption "true"

They also assume constants in a constantly changing world.

Edit: "GAs use probabilistic transition rules, not deterministic rules."

http://www.meteck.org/gaover.html

That's why if you mate two good racehorses you may end up with a very good racehorse or a very expensive hack.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 4:21pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14th, 2022 at 7:54am: A genetic algorithm (GA) is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization problems based on a natural selection process that mimics biological evolution. And yet, as I pointed out, it hasn't been shown to be true. ::) "We assume here that the problem is one of minimization, but the modifications necessary for a maximization problem are nearly always obvious." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226462334_Genetic_Algorithms/link/00b7d52190778a6fce000000/download So you make an assumption and try to prove an assumption "true" They also assume constants in a constantly changing world. Edit: "GAs use probabilistic transition rules, not deterministic rules." http://www.meteck.org/gaover.html That's why if you mate two good racehorses you may end up with a very good racehorse or a very expensive hack.

You appear not to understand probabilistic transition rule and deterministic rules aren’t the only alternatives. Numerous random alterations can induce changes even the original programme authors can’t follow. The circuitous philasophical question of the actual existence of anything ever being fully random then rears it’s ugly head but that’s another discussion. 

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 8:57pm:

Numerous random alterations can induce changes even the original programme authors can’t follow.

Which makes it unable to be shown by computer simulations. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 9:02pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14th, 2022 at 8:57pm: Numerous random alterations can induce changes even the original programme authors can’t follow. Which makes it unable to be shown by computer simulations. ::)

Exactly. We have created a system able to change in a manner and in directions WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND.

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 9:26pm:

We have created a system able to change in a manner and in directions WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND.

And yet it signifies nothing more than what computer games can do.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 9:35pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14th, 2022 at 9:26pm: We have created a system able to change in a manner and in directions WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND. And yet it signifies nothing more than what computer games can do.

So, would you classify armed, autonomous drone swarms as nothing more than a computer game? I suspect you’ve been playing too many yourself.

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 14^th, 2022 at 9:58pm:

So, would you classify armed, autonomous drone swarms as nothing more than a computer game?

They are a delivery system nothing to do with genetics or Genetic Algorithms.