the computational complexity required to establish subjectively meaningful possibilities is just too damn much for current computing.

Someone asked if we could cheat physics?  WE can.  Poetry.

Semantic systems are not mappable by current physics. Mathematically? Somewhat. But the computational complexity required to establish subjectively meaningful possibilities is just too damn much for current computing.

I mean, we can make a computer write poetry. That’s kid’s stuff. I did that in the 80s on my Tandy Color Computer 2 in Microsoft “Extended Color BASIC”.

But metaphorical meaning? Too many overlapping systems at present. Eventually, yes. I can visualize the program. But the subcultural databases required and the linkages, while theoretically not difficult… makes the subjective neural network weighings damn near impossible to figure out for an individual at present.

In short: Can my program generate a poem that is meaningful to me and not to you?

Can it recognize a poem that would be meaningful to me and not to you?

Can it generate a poem that is meaningful to you but not to me?

We’re misisng too much at present. FAR away from our computational abilities and FAR FAR away from what physics can get up to.

Besides, physics DEPENDS on metaphors itself. Tons of them. Unravel it and a physics textbook can become a love sonnet. A love sonnet can describe quantum gravity.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 × = sixteen

Leave a Reply