h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It would work like this. Each team is given the motion with time to research. Neither knows whether they are affirmative or negative so each team is researching and generating points that are the best points of pro and con and respective refutes. Any good team would do this.
The difference comes
when the debate occurs. The adjudicators toss a coin a each team is assigned their side and the probability clock starts. This clock is a random alarm some time or rarely, not at all, in the debate period. It's functioned by the bell curve spanning the period of the debate. Probability of the alarm going off is low, then climbing, peaking and then going low again.
When the alarm goes off teams whom have debated and listened switch sides. Pro is now Con and the debate resumes. Adjudicators carry on scoring each member for their incisive or expanding points which sum up for teams and more overly for the resolution itself. Good, losing side, points need not be lost.
A multiplexed mind has to be better than two sided mind.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
A Physics quantum, I think, wouldn't be grey but rather all participants talking at once, all points at once. The adjudicator (observer) decides which point is the collapsed one. |
|
| |
A part, portion or amount of debate in no particular order could be another collapse. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] An AI open ended mind seems the polar opposite to a defined problem with sets of solutions computed by x number of Qbits. What I'm saying is that the bootstrapping out of just a rigid problem will definitely need more design than just a whoops. |
|
| |
I thought every politician already engages in Quantum
debating. Like they're for it before they were against it |
|
| |
// how a 20 something computer scientist is going to say "Whoops !" when Quantum AI is a possibility. // |
|
| |
Your problem is actually that the interval between the "Whoops ... Wow ... hey, guys come and look at this." and "this" taking over your entire planet is only a few microseconds - basically limited only by the speed of light. |
|
| |
//Each team is given the motion // but, in quantum
mechanics, there is no motion, only the probability of finding
something at another location after some time. |
|
| |
In quantum computing there is a problem to process. |
|
| |
This is a major problem with science, the word being a quantum entity collapsing to whatever the reader wants to observe. Redacting the blurry quantum word, is it an interesting idea? |
|
| |
If enough Care Bears were to stare at Orange
Mussolini long enough, would he collapse into a pile
of quantum goo? |
|
| |
Quantum theory also explains why Qbert can only
jump in defined diagonal planes of higher or lower
energy states, and why he is so otherwise
indecipherable. |
|
| |
Could be, there always is. Mostly humanity is run over, a little, by the eight ball, especially with more and more complexity but, [bigsleep], sounds like you can step out of way. Yay us. |
|
| |