For the tables, please refer to:
https://physicsandbuddhism.blogspot.com/2020/11/quantum-interpretations-and-buddhism_11.html?m=0
Bell's inequality is one of the significant milestones in the investigation of interpretations of quantum physics. Einstein didn't like many features of quantum physics, particularly the suggestion that there is no underlying physical value of an object before we measure it. Let's use Stern's Gerlach's experiment. The spin in x and z-axis are called non-commutative, and complementary. That is the spin of the silver atom cannot simultaneously have a fixed value for both x and z-axis. If you measure its value in the x-axis, it goes up, measure it in z, it forgot that it was supposed to go up in x, so if you measure in x again, you might get down. This should be clear from the previous exercise already and the rules which allow us to predict the quantum result.
There are other pairs of non-commutative observables, most famously position and momentum. If you measure the position of a particle very accurately, you hardly know anything about its momentum as the uncertainty in momentum grows large, and vice versa. This is unlike the classical assumption where one assumed that it's possible to measure position and momentum to unlimited accuracy simultaneously. We call the trade-off in uncertainty between these pairs as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Niels Bohr and his gang developed the Copenhagen principle to interpret the uncertainty principle as there's no simultaneous exact value of position and momentum possible at one time. These qualities are complementary.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) challenged the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. They reasoned that if it is possible to predict or measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, then the elements of reality exist before it was measured and they exist at the same time. Quantum physics being unable to provide the answer to their exact values at the same time is incomplete as a fundamental theory and something needs to be added (eg. hidden variables, pilot wave, many worlds?) to make the theory complete.
In effect, they do believe that reality should be counterfactual definite, that is we should have the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured.
In the game analysis we had done, we had seen that if we relax this criterion, it's very easy to produce quantum results.
EPR proposed a thought experiment involving a pair of entangled particles. Say just two atoms bouncing off each other. One going left, we call it atom A, one going right, we call it atom B.
We measure the position of atom A, and momentum of atom B. By conservation of momentum or simple kinematics calculation, we can calculate the position of B, and momentum of A.
The need for such an elaborate two-particle system is because the uncertainty principle doesn't allow the simultaneous measuring of position and momentum of one particle at the same time to arbitrary precision. However, in this EPR proposal, we can measure the position of atom A to as much accuracy as we like, and momentum of B to as much accuracy as we like, so we circumvent the limits posed by the uncertainty principle.
EPR said that since we can know at the same time, the exact momentum of B (by measuring), and position of B (by calculation based on measurement of the position of A, clearly both momentum and position of atom B must exist and are elements of reality. Quantum physics being unable to tell us the results of momentum and position of B via the mathematical prediction calculation is therefore incomplete.
If the Copenhagen interpretation and uncertainty principle is right that both properties of position and momentum of a quantum system like an atom cannot exist to arbitrary precision, then something weird must happen. Somehow the measurement of the position of A at one side and momentum of B at the other side, makes the position of B to be uncertain due to the whole set up, regardless of how far atom A is from atom B. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance and his special relativity prohibits faster than light travel for information and mass, so he slams it down as unphysical, impossible, not worth considering. (A bit of spice adding to the story here.) Locality violation is not on the table to be considered.
Bohr didn't provide a good comeback to it. And for a long time, it was assumed that this discussion was metaphysics as seems hard to figure out the way to save uncertainty principle or locality. For indeed, say we do the experiment, we measured position of atom A first, we know the position of atom B to a very high accuracy. Quantum says the momentum of atom B is very uncertain, but we directly measured the momentum of atom B, there’s a definite value. Einstein says this value is definite, inherent property of atom B, not uncertain. Bohr would say that this is a mistaken way to interpret that exact value, momentum of atom B is uncertain, that value going more precise than the uncertainty principle allows is a meaningless, random value. Doing the experiment doesn’t seem to clarify who’s right and who’s wrong. So it’s regarded as metaphysics, not worth bothering with.
An analogy to spin, which you might be more familiar with now, is that two electrons are entangled with their spin would point the opposite of each other. If you measure electron A in the z-axis and get up, you know that electron B has spin down in z-axis for certain. Then the person at B measured the electron B in x-axis, she will certainly get either spin up or down in the x-axis. However, we know from previous exercise to discard the intuition of hidden variables that this means nothing. The electron B once having a value in z-axis has no definite value in x-axis, and this x-axis value is merely a reflection of a random measurement.
Then in 1964, came Bell's inequality which drags the EPR from metaphysics to become experimentally testable. This inequality was thought out and then experiments were tested. The violation of the inequality which is observed in experiments says something fundamental about our world. So even if there is another theory that replaces quantum later on, it also has to explain the violation of Bell's inequality. It's a fundamental aspect of our nature.
It is made to test one thing: quantum entanglement. In the quantum world, things do not have a definite value until it is measured (as per the conventional interpretation) when measured it has a certain probability to appear as different outcomes, and we only see one. Measuring the same thing again and again, we get the statistics to verify the case of its state. So it is intrinsically random, no hidden process to determine which values will appear for the same measurement. Einstein's view is that there is an intrinsic thing that is hidden away from us and therefore quantum physics is not complete, Bohr's view is that quantum physics is complete, so there is intrinsic randomness. Having not known how to test for hidden variables, it became an interpretation argument, not of interest to most physicist then.
Two particles which are entangled are such that the two particles will give correlated (or anti-correlated) results when measured using the same measurements. Yet according to Bohr, the two particles has no intrinsic agreed-upon values before the measurement, according to Einstein, they have! How to test it?
Let’s go back to the teacher and students in the classroom. This time, the teacher tells the student that their goal is to violate this thing called Bell’s inequality. To make it more explicit and it's really simple maths, here's the CHSH inequality, a type of Bell’s inequality:
The system is that we have two rooms far far away from each other, in essence, they are located in different galaxies, no communication is possible because of the speed of light limiting the information transfer between the two rooms. We label the rooms: Arahant and Bodhisattva. The students are to come out in pairs of the classroom located in the middle and go to arahant room and bodhisattva room, one student each.
The students will be asked questions called 1 or 2. They have to answer either 1 or -1. Here's the labelling. The two rooms are A and B. The two questions are Ax or By with {x,y}∈{1,2} where 1 and 2 represent the two questions and {ax or by}∈{−1,1} as the two possible answers, -1 representing no, 1 representing yes.
So we have the term: a1(b1+b2)+a2(b1−b2)=±2. This is self-evident, please substitute in the values to verify yourself. Note: in case you still don't get the notation, a1 denotes the answer when we ask the Arahant room student the first question a2 for the second question, it can be -1 or 1, and so on for b...
Of course, in one run of asking the question, we cannot get that term, we need to ask lots of times (with particles and light, it's much faster than asking students), and average over it, so it's more of the average is bounded by this inequality. |S|= |
++−| ≤2 It's called the CHSH inequality, a type of Bell's inequality.
In table form, we can get possible values of say:
Questions asked
a1
a2
Separated by light years, student in B doesn’t know what student in A was asked, how student in A answered and vice versa.
Questions asked
S= |(-1)(-1)+(-1)(1)+(1)(-1)-(1)(1)|=2.
The goal is to have a value of S above 2. That’s the violation of Bell’s inequality.
Before the class sends out the two students, the class can meet up and agree upon a strategy, then each pair of students are separated by a large distance or any way we restrict them not to communicate with each other, not even mind-reading. They each give one of two answers to each question, and we ask them often (easier with particles and light). Then we take their answers, collect them and they must satisfy this CHSH inequality.
The students discussed and came out with the ideal table of answers:
S=4, A clear violation of Bell’s inequality to the maximum.
So for each pair of students going out, the one going into room arahant only have to answer 1, whatever the question is. The one going to the room Bodhisattva has to answer 1, except if they got the question B2 and if they know that the question A2 is going to be asked of student in room arahant. The main difficulty is, how would student B know what question student A got? They are too far apart, communication is not allowed. They cannot know the exact order questions they are going to get beforehand.
Say if students who goes into room B decide to go for random answering if they got the question B2, on the faint hope that enough of the answer -1 will coincide with the question A2. We expect 50% of it will, and 50% of it will not.
So let’s look at the statistics.
= 1
= 1
= 0
= 0
S=2
and are both zero because while a always are 1, b2 take turns to alternate between 1 and -1, so it averages out to zero. Mere allowing for randomisation and denying counterfactual definiteness no longer works to simulate quantum results when the quantum system has two parts, not just one.
It seems that Bell's inequality is obvious and cannot ever be violated, and it's trivial. Yet it was violated by entangled particles! We have skipped some few assumptions to arrive at the CHSH inequality, and here they are. The value for S must be less than 2 if we have 3 assumptions
There is realism, or counterfactual definiteness. The students have ready answers for each possible questions, so the random answering above is actually breaking this assumption already. These ready answers can be coordinated while they are in the classroom, for example, they synchronise their watches, and answer 1 if the minute hand is pointing to even number, and answer -1 if the minute hand is pointing to odd number.
Parameter independence (or no signalling/locality), that is the answer to one room is independent of the question I ask the student in the other room. This is enforced by the no-communication between two parties (too far apart and so on...) Special relativity can be made to protect this assumption.
Measurement independence (or free will/ freedom) the teachers are free to choose to ask which questions and the students do not know the ordering of questions asked beforehand.
All three are perfectly reasonable in any classical system.
Violation of Bell's inequality says that either one of the 3 above must be wrong.
Most physicists say counterfactual definiteness is wrong, there is intrinsic randomness in nature or at least properties do not exist before being measured.
There are interpretations with locality wrong, deterministic in nature, but since the signalling is hidden, no time travel or faster than light that we can use. Quite problematic and challenges Special relativity, not popular but still possible based on the violation of Bell's inequality alone.
And if people vote for freedom being wrong, there is no point to science, life and the universe. Superdeterminism is a bleak interpretation.
Let’s go back to the game, and see if we relaxed one of the 3 rules, can the arahant and Bodhisattva room students conspire to win and violate CHSH inequality?
So to simulate that, say they decide to bring along their mobile phones to the questioning areas and text each other their questions and answers. Yet, this strategy breaks down if we wait until they are light years apart before questioning them, recording it, and wait for years to bring the two sides together for analysis. So for the time being, we pretend that the mobile phone is specially connected to wormholes and circumvent the speed of light no signalling limit. They easily attain their ideal scenario. S=4. We call it PR Box.
Actually this violation reaching to PR box is not reached by quantum particles. Quantum strangely enough only violates up to S=2.828… that means quantum non-locality is weird, but not the maximum weirdness possible. It’s this weird space of CHSH inequality violation that is non-local yet obeys no signalling. Thus the meaning of non-locality in quantum doesn’t mean faster than light signalling. We cannot use quantum entangled particles so far to send meaningful information faster than light. Quantum seems to be determined to act in a weird way, which violates our classical notion of locality, yet have a peaceful co-existence with special relativity.
This was a line of research which I was briefly involved in a small part during my undergraduate days. The researchers in Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore were searching for a physical principle to explain why quantum non-locality is limited as compared to the space of possible non-locality. So far, I do not think they have succeeded in getting a full limit, but many other insights into links between quantum and information theory arise from there and one of the interpretations involve rewriting the axioms of quantum to be a quantum information-theoretic inspired limits and derive the standard quantum physics from there.
The PR box example is actually the maximum non-locality that theoretical physics allows, bounded by no-signalling. So PR box still satisfy special relativity due to no signalling, however, they do not exist in the real physical world as it would violate several information-theoretic principles.
The PR box can be produced too if they know beforehand what questions they each are going to get, so no freedom of the questioner to ask questions. Yet, purely relaxing counterfactual definiteness cannot reproduce it. It’s because Bell’s theorem is not meant to test for purely that. We have another inequality called Leggett’s inequality to help with that (more on it later).
Puzzled by the strange behaviour of quantum, the students looked online to learn how entangled particles behave. Say using spin entangled electrons pairs, they both must have opposite spin, but whether they are spin up or down, it’s undecided until the moment they are measured. So if say electron A got measured to be spin up in z-axis, we know that electron B is spin down in z-axis immediately. With this correlation and suitable choice of angles of measuring the spin, experiments had shown that entangled particle pairs do violate Bell’s inequality, be it photon or electron. Like entangled photons (light) where we measure the polarisation angel, so the questions are actually polarisation settings which involve angles. The polarization of entangled photon pairs is correlated. A suitable choice of 3 angles across the 4 questions of A1, A2, B1, B2 allows for Bell’s inequality violation to the maximum for the quantum case. The different angles allow for more subtle distribution of probabilities to only ensure S goes to 2.828… and not more for the quantum case.
The teacher then by using some real magic, transformed entangled particles into a rival class of students. These groups of students are shielded from the rest of the world to prevent them from losing their quantum coherence nature. Yet, when they enter into the room A and B for each entangled pairs, given the same question by A and B, they answer with the same result. Perfect correlation. Say if we denote entangled student in room A got asked if he is a cat person and the student in room B also got the question if she’s a cat person. Both will answer either yes or no. When we compare the statistics later, each pair of entangled student answers perfectly well.
So what? Asked the group of regular students. So when asked some series of suitable questions involving angles, these entangled particles violated CHSH inequality! Can the normal classical students do that?
The students then try to simulate entangled particles without using an actual quantum entangled particle to see the inner mechanism inside it. The first idea they had was to use a rope to connect the students. Student pairs as they move to room A and B, they carry the rope along with them. When student A got question 2, student A will use Morse code to signal to student B both his answer and the question he receives, then student B can try to replicate quantum results.
The teachers then frown upon this method. She then spends some money from the school to actually make room A and room B to be far away. Say even send one student to Mars on the upcoming human landing on Mars mission. Now it takes several minutes for light to travel from Earth to Mars, and in that time, there’s no way for internal communication to happen between the two entangled particles. The rope idea is prevented by special relativity unless we really believe that entangled particles are like wormholes (which is one of the serious physics ideas floating out there, google ER=EPR), and that they do directly communicate with each other.
Quick note, even if entangled particles do internal communication, it’s hidden from us by the random results they produce in measurement. It’s due to this inherent randomness that we cannot use entanglement correlation to communicate faster than light. So any claims by anyone who only half-read some catchy popular science article title about quantum entanglement who says that with entanglement, we can communicate faster than light, you can just ask them to study quantum physics properly. Quantum non-locality is strictly within the bounds of no signalling. Don’t worry about it, it’s one of the first things undergraduate or graduates physics students try to do when first learning about it and we all failed and learnt that it is indeed due to the random outcomes of the measurement which renders entanglement as non-local yet non-signalling, a cool weird nature.
Experimentally, Bell’s inequality violation has been tested on entangled particles, with the distance between the two particles as far away as 18km apart, using fibre optics to send the light to another lab far far away. With super fast switching, they managed to ask the entangled photons questions far faster than it is possible for them to coordinate their answers via some secret communication. Assuming no superluminal communication between them.
Well, ok, no rope, so what’s so strange about correlation anyway? Classically, we have the example of the Bertlmann’s socks. John Bell wrote about his friend Dr. Bertlmann as a person who couldn’t be bothered to wear matching socks so he takes the first two he has and wear them. So on any given day, if you see the first foot he comes into the room as pink socks, you can be sure that the other sock is not pink. Nothing strange here. So what’s the difference with entanglement?
The main difference is, before measurement, the entangled particles can be either pink or not pink, we do not know. According to Copenhagen interpretation, there’s no value before the measurement, reality only comes into being when we measure it. There’s the probabilistic part of quantum which comes in again. We call it superposition of the states of pink and not pink. For photons, it can be superposition of polarisation in the horizontal and vertical axis, for electron spin, it can be superposition of up and down spin in z-axis. Any legitimate quantum states can be superpositioned together as long as they had not been measured, and thus retain their coherence, and as long as these quantum states are commutable (can be measured together).
In Copenhagen picture, the entangled particles acts as one quantum system. It doesn’t matter how far away in space they are, once the measurement is one, the collapse of the wavefunction happens and then once photon in A shows a result, we know immediately the exact value of photon B. Before measurement, there was no sure answer. This happens no matter if photon A is at the distance of half a universe away from photon B.
This type of correlation is not found at all in the classical world. The students were not convinced. They tried to gather a pink and a red sock they have to put into a bin. Then a student blindfold himself, select the two socks from the bin, switch it around and hand them over to the student pairs who will go to room A and B, one sock each. The students put the socks into their pocket, not looking at it, and only take it out to see it and try to answer based on their correlation, if one has red, we know the other has pink immediately. The pink and red colour can be mapped to a strategy to answer 1 or -1 to specific questions. This is not the same thing as real quantum entanglement, they didn’t perform better at the game. They have counterfactual definiteness. Before asking the students what colour the socks are, we know the socks already have a predetermined colour. With predetermined answers, we cannot expect b2 to have the ability to change answers based on different questions of A1 or A2. Thus no hope of producing quantum or PR box-like correlation.
The teacher finally felt that the students are ready for a simple Bell’s inequality derivation. She selected three students up, each student having a label of an angle: x, y and z. Each student is given a coin to flip. There are only two possible results each, heads or tails. Refer to the table below for all possible coin flip results:
0 means tails, 1 means head. The bar above means we want the tails result. So the table shows us that we can group those with x heads and y tails (xy̅) as case 5 and 6, case 3 and 7 are part of the group of y heads and z tails (yz̅). And finally, the grouping of x heads and z tails (xz̅) are case 5 and 7. It’s obvious that the following equation is trivially true. The number of xy̅ plus the number of yz̅ is greater than or equal to the number of xz̅ cases. This is called Bell’s inequality.
Quantum results violate this inequality, the angles above are used in actual quantum experiments to obtain the violation. In quantum calculations, the number of measurements in xy̅ basis and yz̅ basis can be lower than the number of cases in xz̅ basis. Experiment sides with quantum.
To translate this to CHSH, the questions that were given to the students can have a combination of two of the three angles. So the question in room arahant can be x degrees, and the question asked in room bodhisattva can be y degrees, followed by Room A asks y, Room B ask z, Room A asks x again, Room B asks z. Notice that Room A only asks between x and y, and Room B only asks between y and z, so it fits with only two questions per room. A1 =x, A2=B1=y, B2=z. Note that the choice of degrees to produce violation may differ due to different form of the Bell’s inequalities.
Each of run the experiment can only explore two of the three angles. The heads or tails, 0 or 1 corresponds to the student’s 1 and -1 answer. As the table shows for the coin settings, the implicit assumption is that there’s counterfactual definiteness. Even if the experiment didn’t ask about z, we assumed that there’s a ready value for them. So any hidden variable which is local and counterfactual definite cannot violate Bell’s inequality. For quantum interpretations which deny counterfactual definiteness, they have no issues with violating Bell’s inequality.
Back to EPR, Einstein lost, Bohr won, although they both didn't know it because they died before Bell's test was put to the experiment.
Quantum entanglement was revealed to be a real effect of nature and since then it has been utilised in at least 3 major useful experiments and technologies.
Quantum computers. Replacing the bits (0 or 1) in classical computer with qubits (quantum bits), which you can think of as a spin, which has continuous rotation possible for its internal state, capable of going into superposition of up and down states at the same time, and having the capability to be entangled, quantum computers can do much better than classical computers in some problems. The most famous one is factoring large numbers which is the main reason why our passwords are secure. Classical computers would take millions of years to crack such a code, but quantum computers can do it in minutes. Thus with the rise of quantum computers, we need…
Quantum cryptography. This is the encoding between two parties such that if there’s an eavesdropper, we would know by the laws of physics that the line is not secured and we can abandon our quantum key encryption. There’s some proposal to replace the classical internet with quantum internet to avoid quantum computer hacking into our accounts.
Quantum teleportation. This has less practical usage, but still is a marvellous show of the possibility of quantum technologies. The thing which is teleported is actually only quantum information. The sending and receiving side both have to have the materials ready and entangled beforehand. The quantum object to be teleported has to be coherent (no wavefunction collapse) to interact with the prepared entangled bunch of particles at the sending end. Then the object to be teleported is destroyed by allowing it to interact with the sending entangled particles, we do some measurements, collect some classical information about the measurement, then send it at the speed of light to the receiving end. The receiving end has only the previously entangled particles, now no longer entangled due to the other end having interacted with measurements. They wait patiently for the classical data to arrive before they can do some manipulation to transform the receiving end stuffs into the quantum information of the thing we teleported. If they randomly try to manipulate the receiving end stuffs, the process is likely to fail. The classical data sent is not the same even if we teleport the exact same thing because of quantum inherent randomness involved in the measurement process. The impractical side is that large objects like human bodies are never observed to be in quantum coherence, too much interference with the environment which causes the wavefunction to collapse. And if we want to quantum teleport a living being, it’s basically to kill it on the sending side, and recover it on the receiving side. It’s not known if the mind would follow, does it count as death and rebirth in the same body but different place? Or maybe some other beings get reborn into the new body?
What's on your agenda for 2030? Have you made plans? Are you planning on making plans? Are your goals realistic? Are they inline with our approaching Not Normal New Normal online reality that the world wide WEB is going to
offer become? Because nobody will own anything, anymore, ever again. All things will be a part of the WEB. Most of us won’t have to work because we won't have to make anyTHING in the IoT (Internet ofThings).
An IoT system consists of sensors/devices which “talk” to the cloud through some kind of connectivity. Once the data gets to the cloud, software processes it and then might decide to perform an action, such as sending an alert or automatically adjusting the sensors/devices without the need for the user. Oct 29, 2016.
IoT makes everyday objects 'smart' by enabling them to transmit data and automate tasks, without requiring any manual intervention. Essentially, any object that can be connected to the internet and controlled that way is a candidate for an IoT device.
And who will run the WEB? AI. It will
capture trap data and make decisions about how to best apply that data. And we are data, and they have to analyze and interpret the data to know how to best use that data.
The benefits of IoT for apparel and accessories customers are huge, and most of them are linked to health. Smart sensors located in a shirt (see Hexoskin), for example, could track your heart-rate or temperature, while socks could measure your steps, calories consumed, amongst other data.
Ah. It's for our own good. Thank God. I was getting worried there for a second. Let's see how else it could be used for the betterment of society.
Along with advanced data analytics, IoT-enabled devices and sensors are helping us reduce air pollution in some of our world's biggest cities, improve agriculture and our food supply, and even detect and contain deadly viruses. Source Here
Reduce air pollution. Improve agriculture. And contain deadly viruses. Like now. See? If the IoT had been here soon enough, we wouldn't have to be living in isolation through a pandemic. This is why it's vitality important to implement certain measures that normally would be considered verboten, like a health pass.
Health Pass • The confidence to move forward. Health Pass by CLEAR gives employees and consumers the confidence and peace of mind to get back to work, shop at their favorite store, step into a restaurant and attend a ball game. For over 10 years, CLEAR has been the trusted industry leader for biometric identity and access. Now, no matter where you go, CLEAR's established platform can make everyday experiences easier and safer for everyone. Source Here
Are you
CLEAR? Because if you aren't, you're a danger to society and then society's way forward won't be
CLEAR. Society's future will remain in our distant past as we will have to remain socially distant, which will prevent the NOT NORMAL NEW NORMAL from becoming our BOT NORMAL NEW NORMAL. Just to be sure that we're all on the same page, there will be
GATES to keep us cordoned until we can be
CLEARed by an AI IoT system through the data in our clothes. And that's important, because we can't have Viruses running rampant and spreading, because a Virus is deadly when your living in an Information Based Economy. Do you have a
CLEARVIEW of where this is headed yet? I bet you do, but let's be sure.
Clearview.ai • Clearview AI is a new research tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify perpetrators and victims of crimes. Clearview AI's technology has helped law enforcement track down hundreds of at-large criminals, including pedophiles, terrorists and sex traffickers. It is also used to help exonerate the innocent and identify the victims of crimes including child sex abuse and financial fraud. Using Clearview AI, law enforcement is able to catch the most dangerous criminals, solve the toughest cold cases and make communities safer, especially the most vulnerable among us.
The most vulnerable among us? Who are they? Right here, right now? Let's think, shall we?
The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting the global population in drastic ways. In many countries, older people are facing the most threats and challenges at this time. Although all age groups are at risk of contracting COVID-19, older people face significant risk of developing severe illness if they contract the disease due to physiological changes that come with ageing and potential underlying health conditions.
Voila! I feel safer, do you feel safer? Of course you do! Let's put on our
face condoms masks and build a socially distant campfire and sing kumbaya and It's a
AI Small World After All. Because after all is said and done, we all become old one day. And nobody wants to die before they have to. And think of the elderly. All the sacrifices that they've made for the younger generations! After all, whose going to make our fast food?
If you look closely when you walk into your favorite fast food restaurant or casual dining restaurant, you might notice something different. Where there used to be waiters and hostesses who had just learned to drive, these jobs are now being filled by a completely different demographic – senior citizens.
Thank you seniors! You truly are the greatest generation that has ever lived. Holding the lines while burger bombs and french fry grenades explode around you! Without you, who would make sure we received our fast food, fast?
April 19, 2019 • And more businesses are taking note. In fact, according to Gartner, “by 2020, 85 percent of customer interactions will be managed without a human.” Fast-food companies have heavily invested in automation, analytics and artificial intelligence technologies in recent years, and it’s fair to expect the trend to continue and expand as AI grows increasingly advanced and becomes more accessible.And more businesses are taking note. In fact, according to Gartner, “by 2020, 85 percent of customer interactions will be managed without a human.” Fast-food companies have heavily invested in automation, analytics and artificial intelligence technologies in recent years, and it’s fair to expect the trend to continue and expand as AI grows increasingly advanced and becomes more accessible. Source Here
Raise the praise for Ronald McDonald's Happy Meals! Now we can isolate the elderly and they don't have to work anymore! After all, should they really be working at their age? Aren't they kind of old, and, uhm, well, not to be impolite or rude, but aren't they getting a bit senile to be employed?
Nancy Pelosi Glitches •
Source Here Hillary Clinton Stumbles at 911 event •
Source Here Awkward moment Donald Trump forgets to sign executive order •
Source Here Joe Biden forgets Kamala Harris is Black Woman senator •
Source Here Those politicians sure are
ACTING old, aren't they? Should they really be in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet? Maybe we should find an alternative, like an AI World Government •
Source Here Or maybe get a younger guy in there until AI is ready? Somebody like Andrew Yang. Somebody who wants UBI so that we don't starve when the robots take our jobs •
Source Here Health Pass to keep us alive. UBI to feed us. AI running the planet. Why, it almost looks like it was a well thought out plan, doesn't it? Like a chess game. Or a game of Go. So maybe we should jump into the
Deep Blue and just
AlphaGo and get a move on already? I can't speak for you, but I'm excited about not having a purpose in life. Sounds great, doesn't it? We can all be Comfortably Numb together!
Now. Do you have a
Clearview yet? Maybe? Possibly? Or maybe you're unsure? On the fence. Stuck in the middle? Allow me to elucidate some more to convince the undecided.
MAGA. Make America Great Again. Great slogan, right? It really whips up the patriotism when you think of all of those jobs being brought back from China. Jobs for you. Except.
Forrester predicts that by 2025, technologies like robots, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and automation will replace 7% (or 22.7 million) jobs in the US alone. Source Here
Repetitive tasks like factory work. Or Trucking and Parcel Delivery.
Long-Haul Trucking • I think we will see significant numbers of self-driving trucks in the next five to 10 years, even before self-driving cars. There is a significant shortage of people willing to drive the big rigs down the highway and significant price pressure on their wages. Just think, wouldn’t it be great if all the trucks would stay in one lane? It would be a huge win for the shipping companies and for the general public.
Delivery Services • Automation is best when it is a repetitive action. Restaurants already use automation to dispense your soda in the drive-through or fry up a batch of fries when more are needed. I see package delivery being automated at some point. Drones are already being tested to deliver packages—why not a self-driving truck with a drone to drop the package off at the door? Source Here
That's. A lot. Of jobs. Isn't it? Yes it is. But surely governments are only looking out for us, right? Surely they aren't in league with tech corporations who have a hidden in plain sight agenda being executed under a digital canopy of camouflage?
June 20, 2017 • Donald Trump called for “sweeping transformation of the federal government’s technology” during the first meeting of the American Technology Council, established by executive order last month. Eighteen of America’s leading technology executives – including Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google parent Alphabet – convened at the White House Monday for the summit. “Government needs to catch up with the technology revolution,” said Trump. “America should be the global leader in government technology just as we are in every other aspect, and we are going to start our big edge again in technology – such an important industry.” Source Here
I've spoken about this before: Big Tech and the Government is the same thing. Yes, yes, I know, they're gonna break them apart. Okie Dokie. Gotcha.
Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance •
Source Here Apple's SIRI • Apple’s digital virtual assistant started life as a DARPA project in the early 2000s, known as CALO – ostensibly an acronym for Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes, but also a nod to the Latin word for a soldier’s servant.
SOURCE HERE Microsoft • THE MICROSOFT POLICE STATE: MASS SURVEILLANCE, FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE AZURE CLOUD • Microsoft helps police surveil and patrol communities through its own offerings and a network of partnerships — while its PR efforts obscure this.
Source Here Amazon • The Details About the CIA's Deal With Amazon •
Source Here Ok. They're pretty well in bed with each other. And with the IoT and 5G coming along, they'll be watching us in our beds, all the time. Here's hoping that we don't end up on Pornhub, right? Why it's almost like all that free porn is designed to make us used to the act of being recorded while we have sex. There are sure a lot of amateur recordings being uploaded, aren't there?
Let's look.
Categories viewed the longest in the U.S.—13 to 14 minutes: • Amateur (that is, not produced by commercial entities) Categories that gained the most views from 2016 to 2017: • Cuckold (men watching other men with their gals), up 72 percent. Source Here
Strange statistics, aren't they? They don't rank them up above, and there are others, so maybe they're blips. Aberrations? Not Normal.
The category with the greatest increase in traffic, 108 per cent, was 'amateur' • Source Here
Nope. That's a Not Normal New Normal statistic for sure. But we're not being conditioned to being watched in an internet of things exhibition, are we?
This is
coming (pardon the pun) and most people are asleep at the wheel. We're going to have a
hard (sorry again) time convincing anyone that this is real. A really hard time (ok, ill stop). You see, whatever groups have came up with this have been at it for a long (not another pun, I swear) time. It's designed to make our lives easier and better. On paper. But. How can we trust any of it? This is uncharted water. And it wouldn't be the first time the scientists and the politicians haven't had our best intentions. Heck, it wouldn't even be the first time that they did have good intentions and ended up screwing (not a punhub pun) it up.
The short and simple version of what were seeing carried out before our eyes is this; the Garden of Eden.
November 15, 1997 • The latest entrant to the utopian ranks seems to be Freeman J. Dyson, the 73-year-old mathematician and former physicist, who is now a futurologist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. Like the scientific utopians at this century's start, Mr. Dyson says technology provides the bridge to a heaven on earth. He conjures up a world where trees, not oil wells, produce fuel, where rural villages are the major source of wealth, and former slum dwellers are hooked up to the Internet. In his vision, new technologies pointed in the right direction could create such a poverty-free utopia, leapfrogging the dishearteningly slow efforts of the World Bank and other do-gooders to promote development. Source Here
Where rural villages are the major source of wealth? Hmmm.
Rich flee NYC, workers deal with COVID-19 •
Source Here Hollywood Apocalypse: The rich and famous are fleeing in droves •
Source Here That's quite the coincidence, isn't it?
What research into this holy trinity of solar energy, genetics and computers now needs, Mr. Dyson said, is ''a strong ethical push'' to get all three technologies working in tandem to create ''a socially just world.''
An ethical push. Like a Pandemic. Like now. So it's a great thing that the
Great Reset was ready to go and we can Build Back Better because We're All In This New Normal Together and You're Either With Us Or Against Us.
Is this our future? Hooked up to AI to create a swarm intelligence? And maybe the bigger question is why? Because if you still think this is about money, you're wrong. Sorry, but you are. And even if you don't agree, don't come back in a year or two and say, I told you so. Why? Because this is a long game and if you want to understand better, look into game theory. There will be an upcoming post on this later.
So do we have a
CLEARVIEW on
AI yet?
Clearview AI cancels contract with RCMP, says it’s no longer offering its facial recognition tech in Canada. Clearview AI claims its solution has an advantage over competing facial recognition products because it has copied more than 3 billion images from the internet, including from social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Police forces use Clearview AI to compare images of unknown people — usually suspects — to this database for identification. In addition to questions about the legality of photo scraping for a commercial entity, Clearview AI apparently keeps images in its database even if someone deletes their image from a website. Source Here
Now here's the crux of the problem. Do they see all of this as necessary for the war over natural resources that seems to get closer everyday? Is the environment worse (as I suspect it is in this series) than they've told us, and do they think that we can't make it past without linking up to AI? And here's another thought, maybe AI can't work without us being hooked up to it? Because make no mistake about anybody associated with AI, they are all part of the same group. Here's looking at you Elon. I see you. Good cop. Bad cop. Problem. Reaction. Solution.
And what about MAGA? I kind of brought it up and left it hanging. Let's cut down the noose, shall we. Now remember, words matter. All words. Nothing is an accident at this point. Maybe humans couldn't come up with this intricate of a plan, but a supercomputer could have. Because I don't believe what I'm about to write is an accident.
MAGA • Make America Great Again.
MAGA • Microsoft Apple Google Amazon.
Trump opened the meeting with CEOs from **Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and others by thanking Thiel for his support. “I want to add that I am here to help you folks do well. And you’re doing well right now and I’m very honored by the bounce. They’re all talking about the bounce. So right now everybody in this room has to like me, at least a little bit,” Trump said, perhaps in reference to the fact that he received little support from Silicon Valley during his campaign.
Doesn't that sound like Big Tech got him there? Thank you for the bounce? Really. And why did they thank Thiel for his support? Doesn't it seem off? Or is it just me? Am I suffering another delusional conspiracy moment? Is this apophenia? They are all connected to government after all. And government is putting it's full weight behind AI.
On February 11, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order 13859 announcing the American AI Initiative — the United States’ national strategy on artificial intelligence. This strategy is a concerted effort to promote and protect national AI technology and innovation. The Initiative implements a whole-of-government strategy in collaboration and engagement with the private sector, academia, the public, and like-minded international partners.
Heck, every alliance country is on-board to be online for AI.
Canada and a dozen other countries have launched the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Monday. “Today, as one of 13 founding members, Canada helped launch the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence,” Trudeau told reporters. In addition to Canada, the partnership includes Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Source Here
So we have all signed up to a Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. Ok. And now they're instituting health passes to be cleared for travel. OK. Now you don't think people will be going over all that health data, do you? And if you set off alarms? Then it'll be a good thing that a facial recognition AI will have a Clearview of where you've been and who you've infected. Just in case you don't have your phone. And you're wearing a mask. But is all this prep for the the future society so they can safeguard the AI system, or is it for something else? Because they're adamant that we're entering the age of pandemics, aren't they? And we're getting pretty antagonistic towards the east, aren't we? Or they are towards us, depending on your POV.
So is the health pass because of environmental collapse? Or is it to guard against bioweapons? Or is it both, with the added bonus of setting up a failsafe AI World Government? Remember, Gray War and Unrestricted Warfare tactics are all about keeping the enemy unbalanced. And so far, so good. And I hope that you're ready to settle in for the long haul, because U/pinkpolkagirl has it right with this post •
MKULTRA So just remember, we're all in this
Not Normal New Normal together.
Heads up and eyes open. Talk again soon.
What laws govern gambling in Singapore? Currently, there are a total of five laws that cover aspects of gambling in Singapore: The Common Gaming Houses Act – This act regulates and suppresses all common gaming houses, public gaming, and public lotteries An Act relating to the suppression of common gaming houses, public gaming and public lotteries. [3rd March 1961] Short title: 1. This Act may be cited as the Common Gaming Houses Act. Interpretation: 2. —(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires — “common gaming house” includes any place kept or used for gaming to which the public or any class of the public has or may have ... 7. The purpose of this Act is to regulate remote gambling and remote gambling services affecting Singapore with the object of —. ( a) preventing remote gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime or disorder; and. Gambling is regulated tightly through strict laws with the objectives of maintaining law and order as well as to minimise potential harm to the society. Gambling activities are prohibited unless they are exempted or licensed. The gambling-related legislation include the Common Gaming Houses Act, Betting Act, Remote Gambling Act, Private Lotteries Act, and the Casino Control Act. The Casino ... With the exemptions, Singapore Turf Club will be able to offer horse racing betting services on an online wagering platform while Singapore Pools will be allowed to offer remote gambling for existing lotteries, football and motor-racing sports betting products. The exemption is only granted in respect of their existing products and the exempt operators are not permitted to offer casino-style games and poker. The best 20+ online shopping sites in Singapore 2021 If you’ve been searching for the best online stores in Singapore offering funky fashion favourites, top-branded electricals, beauty and cosmetics, and beyond, then you’ve landed right where you need to be. SINGAPORE — More than 120 people have been arrested for illegal online gambling since the Remote Gambling Act came into effect on Feb 2 last year. Online Gambling Service Providers: Although there is currently no legislation that prohibits or regulates online gambling activities in Singapore, online gambling service providers may be regulated under the Betting Act and Common Gaming Houses Act – legislation that regulates gambling activities that are carried out in physical premises. However, given that there is no extraterritorial application of this legislation it is difficult to enforce the local legislation against offshore or ... Singapore: Gambling Laws and Regulations 2021. ICLG - Gambling Laws and Regulations - covers common issues in gambling laws and regulations – including relevant authorities and legislation, application for a licence, licence restrictions, digital media, enforcement and liability – in 37 jurisdictions. ... Singapore Casinos to Be Governed by New Gaming Authority in 2021. Posted on: September 24, 2020, 11:47h. Last updated on: September 24, 2020, 12:30h.
