Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Viva los semi-panaderos!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                 

Quantum competitive debating

Achieve the most solidly clever constructs from the Resolution.
 
(0)
  [vote for,
against]

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.

wjt, Jun 28 2019


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.



Annotation:







       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.
wjt, Jun 28 2019
  

       [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.
wjt, Jun 28 2019
  

       I thought every politician already engages in Quantum debating. Like they're for it before they were against it
theircompetitor, Jun 28 2019
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Jun 28 2019
  

       //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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2019
  

       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?
wjt, Jun 29 2019
  

       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.
RayfordSteele, Jul 01 2019
  

       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.
wjt, Jul 05 2019
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle