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.
