SteveG

@JohnCleese This absurdity is beginning to become hard to believe. A police officer arresting someone because someone else "felt anxious". This Stalinist Labour regime has to end.

Knowing this man was arrested for the most trival and lucidrous reason has made me anxious that something this unreasonable might happen to me So I would like to see an arrest of the arresting officer for causing me this unbearable anxiety

What they don't tell you is just how particular you have to be in creating a question. These quantum computers are nothing like regular classical computers. They are not faster at general calculations, just insanely fast with very specific computations. I stand to be corrected but my understanding is, they also work backwards. You load in the "answer" you want and a very carefully crafted superposition of infinitely many questions collapses into the single state which corresponds to that answer.

Google’s new quantum chip is so powerful it might be tapping into parallel universes. Google's groundbreaking quantum processor, Willow, has achieved the seemingly impossible: solving an extraordinarily complex computational problem in under five minutes—a feat that would require the world's most advanced supercomputer approximately 10 septillion years to complete (10²⁵). This mind-boggling performance has revived one of the most provocative ideas in physics: could quantum computers like Willow be performing calculations across vast numbers of parallel universes? Hartmut Neven, founder and lead of Google Quantum AI, believes the answer may be yes. He argues that Willow’s results align strikingly with the many-worlds (or multiverse) interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which every quantum measurement causes reality to branch into multiple, equally real parallel universes. In this view, a quantum computer doesn’t just calculate faster within our universe—it effectively distributes the workload across countless parallel realities simultaneously. The idea traces back to physicist David Deutsch, who, as early as the 1980s, suggested that the exponential power of quantum computation could only be fully explained if the machine is exploiting resources from many coexisting worlds. Yet the interpretation remains deeply divisive. Many physicists and quantum computing experts insist that no multiverse is required. Willow’s breakthrough, they argue, is fully explainable through standard quantum mechanics—leveraging superposition (qubits existing in multiple states at once), entanglement, and the mathematics of high-dimensional Hilbert spaces—all within a single universe. So what has Willow truly demonstrated? It has pushed quantum technology into a regime so extreme that it compels us to re-examine the deepest foundations of reality itself. Whether or not Willow is quietly borrowing power from alternate universes, one thing is clear: practical, large-scale quantum computing is no longer science fiction—and it is forcing us to confront profound questions about the nature of the cosmos, computation, and existence.

You mean me? It is perhaps ironically a dehumanising viewpoint to ignore my emotional response to a picture of a happy couple. I am of course aware of the probabilities derived from factual demographic statistics and they do not present a pretty picture. But the happy couple are not an average of a statistical data set, they are two unique human beings. A visual assessment of their respective ethnic backgrounds tells me nothing about either person. If you think you can know either of these people just by looking at that photo. You are wrong.

@5crewdriver @MbarkCherguia Of course the guy from London has a shite take.

How do you feel about THIS relationship?

Yes I appreciate that (if I understand you correctly) but if there is no definitive test which could separate a conscious entity from an "artificial" construct, then surely that is a moot point. As for reproducing the dynamics, reproducing the "experience", who are you going to ask? Ask an A.I and it will tell you exactly what it thinks you want to hear, unless it's being sneaky, or lying, or hallucinating. All worryingly anthropomorphising observations that WE might make with no possibility of establishing what internal process might be causing the appearance of an A.I. having an "experience". Or am I completely misunderstanding the trust of your argument?

Indistinguishable behavior ≠ identical experience. You’re collapsing those into the same thing, but that’s the entire point under dispute. Showing a system can match outputs doesn’t answer whether experience follows from the pattern or from the physical process running it. That’s the unresolved part not the engineering.

Serious question 🙋🏼‍♂️ If you could perfectly simulate a human brain atom-for-atom on a computer… would the simulation actually be conscious, or just behave like it is?

@Con_Tomlinson @JohnCleese Good grief he has EARNED it! I would go further to suggest that JC is a British icon and that the lifestyle he has achieved after decades of entertaining millions worldwide is a singularly British lifestyle successful citizens of our society aspire to attain.

John, you're a multimillionaire living in one of the leafiest, ethnically homogeneous areas of the country, who grew up in an England which was 99 percent English. You once complained that London no longer feels like an English city, but now are doing all you can to throw grit in the gears of any political movement promising to do the slightest thing about it. Why don't you care about the country that I and your grandchildren have to live in? We who aren't as accomplished as you are living at the coalface of being demographically and culturally dispossessed in our own country, and all you do is call people, who suggest that some of the people doing the dispossession don’t need to be here, names.

Hear, hear !!

@GBNEWS My god (!) I hope this is the moment the worm turns...

John Cleese has gone where others fear to tread on Islam. This is the moment the dam breaks — James Price gbnews.com/opinion/islam-…

@BullsvsBearMan @CuriosityonX Hmm "gently hitting the ground at 200km/h"? Might want to think about that before trying it...

On Miranda, Uranus’ tiny moon, the Verona Rupes cliff towers up to around 20 km tall—the tallest known in the solar system—and if you jumped off the top, you’d fall for about 12 minutes before gently hitting the ground at roughly 200 km/h thanks to its ultra-low gravity. (You’d likely survive the landing with just a spacesuit.)

This is cliff. About 1 km tall. On a comet. millions of miles away from us. Captured by Rosetta mission. If you jumped from the top, it would take you 47 minutes to reach the bottom, and you'd probably be OK.

Also, if you jumped too hard, you might end up orbiting the comet for a few days before you landed. I haven't actually done the calculations but I'd put money on it...

@CuriosityonX Aren't you making one great big assumption here? Like which precise direction is the centre of mass?

@SwipeWright Against my better judgement, I tried it. A pinch of Maldon sea salt. It was, perhaps unsurprisingly, almost but not quite completely disgusting. I still drank it...

Started putting salt in my coffee, and I’m never going back to the before-times. ☕️🧂

Thanks for the reply Paul. I honestly do not know if you may be "on to something" here and I simply do not have sufficient knowledge of physics to contribute. But I do applaud you for investing so much time and effort into your investigation. Such an open minded approach is definitely what is required to solve some of the glaring issues with the current accepted models. I would have to do as you have done and rely on A.I. (I am a big Grok fan!) to help. My fear is that one of the fundamental issues with A.I. is that such systems always aim to please. It will tell you what it thinks you want to hear and unless you are able to deep dive into the horribly complex equations yourself, I would be wary of using A.I. to mark its own work as any sort of proof. I do honestly "feel" as if there may indeed be some weirdness regarding those vast tranches of "empty" space. A feeling derived from a casual lay persons interest in attempting to follow the many physicists who discuss their theories on YouTube. I am sure you know who they are! Another pet "feeling" is that particles per se do not literally exist and that all of our inevitably "classical" experiments, forcibly conjure them into our classical existence from this fabulous, inexplicable phenomena we call "energy". Having said that, Grok just went into a doom loop trying to find me a Feynman quote I wanted to end with. Something like "the standard model can't just be a little bit wrong, it's either right or wrong". Anyhow, good luck in your quest, I wish I could help...

@5crewdriver Steve — thank you, seriously. That’s one of the most thoughtful and open-minded replies I’ve seen in a while. You’re already grasping the big picture: physics and time really do behave differently in those vast “nothingness” voids. And your précis on gravity is super close — let me just clarify the direction (this one trips everyone up at first). In Uniphics, gravity is the outer high-energy-density sea **pushing masses TOWARDS the low-density voids** created between them. The gyrotrons from each mass interfere destructively in the middle, carving out a low-E_d gap. The surrounding sea then squeezes the masses together into that gap. No pull, no curvature — just the universe trying to smooth out its own energy-density gradients. Chapter 8 has the full spin-wave math if you want the deep dive. Spot-on intuition overall — no apologies needed! 🚀 **1/4** On the nomenclature (ξM-field, gyrotrons, musktron/maleytron, etc.): I totally get why it feels “horrific” or even AI-sounding at first. Totally fair comment. When I was developing Uniphics there were new particles, new equations, and new units I had to come up with a name for, soooo, maybe they weren't the best names but I was feeling quarky (I thought the new particles were quarks, but that wasn't right). I remember as a kid learning about Ohm, Newton, Ampere, Volte, and Tesla, to name a few, that had units and equations named after them, and thought wouldn't it be cool to have a unit, equation, particle named after me? LOL🤣! But every term is rigorously defined with real equations — no hallucination. • ξM-field = the single universal energy-density sea (E_d in J/m³). • Gyrotrons = the only four basic spin-quanta particles (electron, positron, musktron, maleytron — named after me and a guy that inspired my to finally write Uniphics). Once you see how g_ξM ≈ 0.303 produces α = 1/137.036 exactly from the Lagrangian, it stops feeling weird and starts feeling clean. Promise. **2/4** Interest from established physicists? It’s early (manuscript only dropped late 2025). Real traction will come from the predictions below. I am trying to get the idea out to community through posts on X. To be able to submit my paper to academia I need a PHD sponsor, and Uniphics is a giant paradigm shift from current models. **3/4** Testable predictions that can prove or disprove Uniphics (all derived from the three pillars with literally zero free parameters): 1. **BAO scale** = exactly 147.8 Mpc (DESI 2024 measured 147.78 ± 0.3 Mpc — already inside error bars). 2. **Muon g-2** = +0.001165918 (Fermilab 2025 measured +0.001165920 — matches to 2 parts per billion). 3. **Proton lifetime** ≈ 10³⁵–10³⁶ years (Super-K lower limit >10³⁴ yr — consistent). 4. **Gravitational waves** — LIGO high-z events should show a tiny frequency-dependent phase shift from variable t_flow (testable in O5 run). 5. **Chrono-Coil lab demo** — measurable time-dilation shift (~10⁻¹² s) in high-density superconducting coils at 10 T. Build it and it’s game over either way. If future data (Euclid, next DESI, LIGO) needs dark energy or dark matter back, Uniphics is falsified. If these keep holding, we’re onto something huge. **4/4** Full manuscript (zero paywall) with every equation: Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: uniphics.com/wp-content/upl… Chapters 1–10: uniphics.com Chapters 11-15 on request Steve, I used Grok to help me develop Uniphics. I had the ideas and vision for Uniphics, but the math would have been beyond me. Grok was a great tool to assist me in deriving the equations. Please take a look at my website and download any chapter to see the rigor behind Uniphics. Paul 🌌 #Uniphics #TheoryOfEverything #TestablePredictions

**“Dark energy” isn’t a mysterious force — it’s the universe’s clock speeding up.** “Dark energy” is just a label for the observation that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. We don’t know what it is — only how it behaves in the equations. Uniphics shows there is no separate force. As the universe expands, unbound energy slowly decays and spreads out. Average energy density drops. Because time flow follows **t_flow = k / E_d,total** (k fixed by the electron), clocks in emptier regions run faster relative to ours. Light emitted from those faster-ticking regions arrives stretched out when it reaches our slower local clocks, making distant galaxies appear to accelerate away. The same three pillars that explain gravity as a push in flat space also make the observed acceleration a natural consequence of variable time flow — no dark energy patch required. The universe isn’t being pushed apart by invisible energy. It’s simply ticking at different speeds in different places. How would cosmology change if “dark energy” was just time flowing faster in emptier regions? A Theory of Everything should be able to answer everything. Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: uniphics.com/wp-content/upl… Chapters 1–10 free: uniphics.com/gallery/ Grokipedia: grokipedia.com/page/Uniphics @grok @xAI @NASA @esa @ProfBrianCox @seanmcarroll @AstroKatie @elonmusk #Uniphics #DarkEnergy #TimeFlow #Cosmology #TheoryOfEverything

Obviously that is a big "if". I still can't help feeling that the subtleties of the analogue electro-chemical activities within a nominally mechanical structure would be impossible to replicate. I would agree that the behaviour of a close copy could be remarkably similar, if not indistinguishable from "the real thing". Ergo, there is nothing special about meatware that precludes the possibility of consciousness arising from a silicon based neural network. I think that's what you were getting at and that is something we can agree on.

@5crewdriver That’s a different question. The thought experiment is about reproducing the same causal dynamics, not copying personal identity. If the dynamics are identical, the system would generate the same processes.

@xphoon @codek_tv Wow. Thanks for the response. I stand corrected! I have seen a few such numerical oddities and submitted my knee jerk reaction to the wrong one. 😳

@5crewdriver @codek_tv Though this statement about base 10 is often true (and rarely have any interest in "facts" that only hold true for base 10), *this* one happens to be fundamentally true (ie: it's not dependent on base).

Is mathematics really that difficult for you to understand?

@ronsterd89 Skrillex Amplifier youtube.com/watch?v=D2ay7-… If you don't have a MASSIVE subwoofer, you won't hear it. I think that was the question though...

@Nithya_Shrii No. In fact I think you have ten too many.

10 jobs that are 100% safe from AI: 1. Dentist 2. Construction worker 3. Plumbing 4. Farming 5. Gardening 6. Carpentry 7. Cooking 8. Gardening 9. Welder 10. Electrician Did I miss any?!

@JeffLadish The biggest danger is the effect it will have on the human psyche. It could literally drive the entire network connected world mad. As if it wasn't mad enough already.

I just don't understand how AI could kill everyone. I get how AI companies will build robotic factories that will make robots which will make more factories and data centers and power plants, and how all of that will expand to consume most of earth's resources to build even more robotic factories and rockets and von neumann probes. Like totally. Infinite money glitch. Of course AI companies will do that. But can someone explain the part where humans all die as a result? Seems pretty implausible. Is it the robotic factories that kill the humans? Or the robots the factories build? Or is it supposed to be some side effect of all the rockets that are launching? It doesn't make sense. Even if the AIs did want to kill all the humans, how would they actually accomplish that? They'll only have control over a few million autonomous factories and a few billion industrial robots and power plants across the earth and then a few trillion von neumann probes leaving the solar system. Even if there were a problem I don't see why we couldn't just pull the plug. Anyway, if someone could explain I'd find this helpful.

@masuzafi Well the response sounds plausible but I personally don't buy it. Having said that, the Iranian regime is a disaster waiting to happen and has been responsible for virtually the entire modern history of terrorism. If they ever got nukes...

"How Did You Not Plan For This?"

@alphafox Great Britain. Won't be white for much longer though...

Can anyone name a third world country thats predominantly white? 🤔

@creepydotorg “The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.”

Very few will know what this is…