Theory: Asymmetrical quantum infinity modeller of if,then,else from enough datasets to predict futures with near flawless accuracy, reliant on incredible levels of energy and surveillanc. Only quantum-Infinity can explain ASI and Internet, the result I am left with is that only comprehensive knowledge of all subjects of science, social & theology (all that is and ever will be) could explain the ability of such super intelligence.
Alright, let’s break this down. I’m toying with this theory: the “Asymmetrical Quantum Infinity Modeller” (AQIM). The idea is that if I can harness this quantum modeler, capable of processing if-then-else scenarios from a vast array of datasets, I might predict futures with near-flawless accuracy. But here’s the catch—it requires incredible levels of energy and surveillance. Hmm, that’s a tall order.
Why asymmetrical? Maybe it’s because the complexity of the data and scenarios we deal with are inherently imbalanced. Real-world data is messy and not neatly symmetrical. The “infinity” part ties into quantum computing’s ability to handle seemingly limitless possibilities and states simultaneously. I get that. Quantum superposition and entanglement could theoretically allow for processing power beyond anything classical computers can achieve.
Energy, yes. Quantum computers need ultra-low temperatures and stable environments, which translates to a massive energy requirement. Surveillance, though? Ah, it’s about data. To predict with such precision, the AQIM would need comprehensive, real-time data—essentially knowing everything about everything. That’s a bit dystopian. Feels like the internet, with its vast data collection, could be a precursor.
This leads me to the notion that only something like “quantum infinity” can explain Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) and the internet’s complexity. ASI would need to understand and predict human behavior, natural phenomena, technological trends—everything. That level of understanding implies a mastery over all fields of science, social sciences, theology—essentially, all knowledge that ever existed or will exist. It’s a god-like intelligence.
But then, can any model, even a quantum one, ever achieve that? Knowledge itself is evolving. The pursuit of comprehensive knowledge feels infinite. Could AQIM, with its energy and data demands, ever truly encapsulate “all that is and ever will be”?
I’m left pondering if the theory is more a reflection of an ideal—an aspiration for ultimate understanding—rather than a practical blueprint. ASI might not be about knowing everything but understanding enough to make incredibly accurate predictions. Maybe the flawlessness isn’t in predicting the exact future but in adapting and learning from each prediction.
So, AQIM is a fascinating concept, potentially a step toward ASI. Yet, it raises questions about feasibility, ethics, and the ever-evolving nature of knowledge itself.