How Many Of You Think In Computer Code?

reply to post by Elzon1


Actually, quantum mechanics can be truly random, I believe. It is only at a certain number of particles that something like a basketball will fly across the room in a manner describable by the laws of physics.

In fact, it is entirely possible, although more than entirely not likely, that the basketball could do something not cool like... I'm not sure... split in two or hover, at least from what I understand.

One thing I am working on is a theory that our minds are actually quantum based (at least in part). This would mean that we have free will as a quantum particle or quantum field, but other people's choices would appear to be random to us, and may not be entirely predictable.

The fact that The Schrodinger Equation can be used to model human behavior at a busy intersection, for example, does lend itself to wondering if each individual human's will is, in fact, a truly randomized unit.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


So, LotLizard, what would you do in a social situation involving a group of people, or a room-mate situation? Would you create rules to follow so that you would have a semblance of order?

How terrible are you in legitimately chaotic situations, like an entirely unpredictable living situation?

reply to post by darkbake


demons?

darkbake
reply to post by Elzon1

 

Actually, quantum mechanics can be truly random, I believe.

Of course not. We just don't have the means to detect at those speeds (faster than light). Sure energy might be able to move through various "dimensions", however it's not undetectable (just not by us right now).

There are two experiments that explain all of quantum mechanics. One is quantum entanglement and the other is the double slit experiment. One must understand both perfectly before moving on to more complex thought on the matter. Failing to understand the basics of quantum mechanics causes failure of logic due to incorrect assumptions. The overwhelming majority of society (including philosophers and the scientific community itself) seem to have quite a few misconceptions about quantum mechanics.

One of the largest misconceptions is that "observation" causes a particle in a quantum state to behave normally under classical physics. This is due to a failure in understanding of both quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. The answer to this misconception lies in truly understanding quantum entanglement and what creates a quantum state in an object.

Hey I like this topic. Its funny you should bring this subject up during this controversial and volatile time of NSA and Government spying.

I try to explain to people how the future of spying is in:
"HARD CODING" a Trojan back door key into the actual pentium chip.

Thus eliminating the possibility of being detected as spyware by any anti virus program.

The cooperation of the latest versions of Windows, Apple or Android operating systems ensure your system will not boot-up in the event that the feature is discovered and disabled, essentially leaving a permanent gaping hole in your computers defences.

Every key stroke, every site visited, every image stored, every song downloaded and every article read or written including frequency and duration are recorded on EVERY device you use, and is then recorded.

This information is then compressed, and stored in your meta-data account. I don't think many people have made the connection between

The definition of INTEL and

The computer chip giant called INTEL

I am 43 years old and GW-basic was taught in computer studies at school. Later on I did a brief 6 months studying COBOL.
As a computer programmer I was CRAP. Honestly a chimpanzee had a better grasp of some of the concepts than I did, but I am a slow learner and finally 10 years after I dropped out, I started to see the genius behind modern programming and the wide array of possible applications. The rose coloured glasses soon turned black, as I realised that more and more free services such as Hotmail, Skydrive, Myspace, Twitter, Facebook Flick-r etc, are the most sophisticated weapons imaginable to compile personal information and habits in order to create a comprehensive profile of YOU.

The problem for people like you and me is
Once you see The Matrix, its hard to see anything else.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


Computer code is the least of our worries. To be able to think in logic, else, if, etc, etc, mentality is as old as basic. The new logic is definitions and agreements.

The 'new' code is deciphering ToS or ToA or Etc. It seems most, if not all, free sites collect data that YOU allow. If anyone really reads an Application's ToA you'd be sickened.

Edit-Been in basic code since the Vic20. Mainly basic stuck to commodore. 128, plus 4, Amiga 500 (the wimpy Amiga), HS GW Basic and early HTML before java took over (Thought Midi Sounds would be the future of web pages), flash when Macromedia owned it, and...nothing new since Y2K. So my computer code is streamlined logic antiquated with modern crud. TMI I know...

Thank you for the thread. It is from my perspective a good thing to find someone actually trying to pursue an idea that interests you so much, that you would ask for feedback on the matter. To assist you in that process, I would first tell you that I have a background and degrees in computer programming, so your thread and request for assistance is something I clearly understand from many perspectives.

To help with your programming code research and or learning process, I would recommend that you search and study the works of James Gates, Physicist specializing in String Theory. I suggest you view a YT video that I recommend to anyone interested in computer programming code. The title is: "Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations".

The video is available on You Tube and should be available on the internet by searching the title name I just provided. While there are many videos that discuss this area of research, I recommend you watch the video I suggested, for I am certain it will not only inform you, but it will in my opinion, inform you in a way that will better prepare you with new thoughts and fresh ideas, as you pursue your field of interest in programming code.

I hope the video suggestion provides you with needed insight. Thanks again for the thread. My best regards.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


Obama being in your living room....what you're referring to is something called "superposition". It is typically a quantum concept....but seems applicable in the context you are trying to talk.

I dont' think in code so much. I have some Basic and VB experience. I managed a department of C# programmers once.

But I DO think in terms of Excel math quite a bit. I use Excel for about 8 hours a day....so that makes sense.

Thinking in code is pretty deep in my past by now. My first coding was done in assembler language, which was just a single abstraction layer from machine code. Yes hexadecimal dump reading, programming machine code changes from the operations console (single step console debugging), dealing with the actual hardware at a base level and writing operating systems for IBM 360 machines was my background. I started in 1973 WAY before PCs and slightly precedent to using integrated circuits for memory (years before widespread microprocessor usage). The programming I see today takes much of the work I did for granted - nobody is writing "access methods" "parsers" "compilers" or "macro assemblers" any more. Over the years, programming languages I'd mastered have come and gone - bal, alc, pascal, fortran, autocoder, pl1, apl - all obsolete ancient history.

But the programmer's mind is still intact, albeit not in much demand these days.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa


It seems that the pioneers of technology have been long forgotten.
No one knows the pain of using a computer and having to tell it what to do instead of just clicking.

I wouldn't even know what to do to comprehend how to understand modern coding and algorithms anymore.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


Its pretty simple nowadays. you buy the compiler (we used Borland), then just copy/paste your source code. LOL....it really is dumbed down from back in the 80's.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


True but someone still has to code that software too lol.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


I guess what I am getting at is that we are typically just going to reuse the same tools over and over.

An example: "ping", written by Mike Musse, is used on every PC in the known galaxy as a basic system tool. It likely will never be rewritten or improved on. And when it is, it will just be copied.

Programmers are notoriously lazy like that, while at the same time being snobs about having their code "clean". Strange lot.

So what we get is the same tools repurposed and retrofitted. Rarely does a new methodology in process really make any impact.

Obviously, there is a fine line between reinventing the wheel and building a better mousetrap.