They typically play a role if you care about how smooth the transitions between two accelerations are (e.g. vehicles)
Similarly designers and engineers look at derivatives of curvature (1/radius) if they want to achieve smooth transitions between curved surfaces (e.g. car bodies).
Cannot speak about motion, but in surface continuity you will also look at higher "derivatives" if you want really really smooth transfers between two curves. So you make the transition of the curvature comb of a curve's curvature comb tangetial or so. There they just call the transitions g0, g1, g2, g3, g4 and so on.
I cannot judge whether snap, crackle and pop are things people actually use when they talk about those derivatives in motion.
I think defining art wholly and solely by the intentions (and humanity) of the artist is clear cut at least, but not very illuminating, because for the person experiencing the art these properties are in general unknowable.
100 years hence you find a beautiful image. Is it art? Who knows — we don’t know whether the artist intended it to be, nor whether they were even human.
“I like this” != “this is art”. The fact that an image you may have found looks good to you without context is orthogonal to whether it is art.
(If you are certain that at least a human has produced such an image, you could speculate about and attempt to empathize with that unknown human’s internal state of mind—lifting the image to the level of art—but as of recently you’d have to rule out that an unthinking black box has produced it.)
You may be inspired by it to create art—but since art is fundamentally a way of communication, when there is no self to communicate there’s no art.
The problem with your definition is art is worthless.....
Art in a sense is no different from money. If it can be counterfeited in such a manner that a double blind observer has no means of telling an original bill (human made art) from a counterfeit (AI art) then you're entire system of value is broken. Suddenly your value system is now authenticating that a person made the art instead of a machine (and the fallout when you find that some of your favorite future artworks were machine created).
The problem comes back down to inaccurate langage on our part. We use art as a word for the creator and the interpreter/viewer. This it turns out is a failure we could not have understood the ramifications at the time.
This is not offered as some sort of authentication mechanism, the distinguishing quality of art as opposed to a pretty thing is art fundamentally being a way of self-expression, which is inevitably communication. There’s no self-expression when there’s no self to express. If there’s no human on either side, there’s no communication and it’s not art. One may find an object pretty and hang it on the wall, but that doesn’t make that object “art”.
The “complicated” case you hint at is not complicated: if people are misled into thinking some object has been produced by a human while it’s raw output of a neural network without human intervention then it’s not art, no matter how many people assume it’s art. If a machine produced a piece of art that is a frankenstein monster of art pieces, then we are not looking at art.
(And of course if a machine produced a piece of art identical to a piece of art produced by a human before then we’re effectively looking at a piece of art produced by that human.)
> Art in a sense is no different from money.
Per above, couldn’t be further from the truth as far as I’m concerned, but you do you.
Bypass the limit?
No.
Partially because you need to propagate that measurement somehow to your brain.
But assuming that we have the "pin down perfectly" part (idk how that would even be possible):
Mostly because the position/momentum of the measured particle would immediately become uncertain right after the measurement (it becomes a cloud of probabilities again).
The total uncertainty in the system would likely decrease, since you can think of it like wavefunction collapse. Of course, everything depends on how exactly the situation works mathematically, which we haven't actually defined yet.
To be clear, it is very well known that it isn't a measurement limitation. It's similar to asking "what the length of an oval" is, since there are many ways to measure an oval. It's not a "well-defined" question, and in fact, quantum mechanics requires it to be not-well-defined.
For more info, check out the fourier transform and how that necessitates the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
I (and many other physics people) find that people have a very hard time even trying to accept the nature of reality when it comes with uncertainty, and I think that's very normal. But according to our best known models, uncertainty is the nature of reality, and not because we can't measure enough.
Thanks. Yes, I get the Fourier transform thing (and Bell's theorem etc.), but imagine asking Newton the consequences of finite-speed gravity. He could either imagine how to reconcile that with his theory and hypothesize what the outcome might be (e.g., he might say if the sun exploded then you'd find out 8 minutes later), or he could tell you it's intrinsically infinite and that your question is like asking "what the length of an oval" is. I find one of these answers more satisfactory than the other.
Now, in this particular case: I understand superdeterminism would mean the entire world could be deterministic and yet consistent with QM, correct? And I understand a reason why the world might be superdeterministic is that everything is already correlated/entangled together (say, from the big bang), thus making this in fact inherently a "measurement problem" in that we don't have any unentangled measurement particles available... right?
If you buy that so far, then here's where I'm trying to go with this: if QM's response to this is "well, if you did obtain such an unentangled particle, you could use it to reduce the uncertainty in your next measurement beyond your current limits", then it seems to me QM is in favor of the world being superdeterministic, and the uncertainty we face is more coincidental than fundamental. Whereas if QM's response was "well, even if you had such a particle, you couldn't use it to reduce the uncertainty in your next measurement", then it seems to me QM believes the measurement limit is more fundamental than coincidental. Given the situation seems like the former to me, is there any reason to bet against the world being superdeterministic? If anything, it seems to me that superdeterminism has the big bang going for it, no?
As an (ex-)physicist who did minor QC research, I'm very annoyed at the sensationalism. I do typically enjoy Quanta, their sensationalism is usually less severe, and the intuition they givd is decently aligned when I (sometimes) dive deeper.
