Is that an axiom? Or a conjecture?

I'd argue that (if we're going down the path I think you think you're trying to go) a "purer" state is the absence of opinion or naïveté. But that never lasts very long, now does it? So, what fills that innocence? The worldly wisdom of *insert philosopher here*? Or the still, small voice of a real-actual God?

Yup, exactly!

Restaurants, for the most part, are in the business of more than just serving food, they're also in the business of a hospitable, cultural experience. If said cultural experience is disrupted by something--even if it's as innocent as the natural curiosity that goes with seeing something as novel as Google Glass headset--then it's in their best interest to mitigate that disruption. Why do you think they say "no shirt. no shoes..." in the first place? Obviously, there is no law against walking barefoot, but, in most western cultures, it's considered rude to do so. Of course, this pattern changes depending upon cuisine/culture, so don't be offended if you're asked to remove your shoes when entering that authentic Japanese restaurant.

tl;dr: Google Glass headsets will be considered rude until they've been integrated into a culture as normal. If you're not sensitive to that culture's norms or etiquette, then you don't deserve to enjoy it.

It is incredibly important. At the very least, it's proof that the problems associated with fusion power are solvable. But most importantly, this news will funnel more cash towards further fusion research, further accelerating progress towards real actual power plants.

Okay, admittedly, that came off a bit more abrasively than intended...

The only validity IQ has, in my mind, is that it could possibly loosely correlate to a more accurate metric such as active cerebral neurons, or something of that sort. Anything more than that is comparing apples and oranges: it's a bit simplistic to place a brilliant composer in the same category as a Nobel laureate, as both are quite valuable to society in very different ways.

Yup, obliviously splitting hairs.

Yes, the argument is, in fact, justified.

P.S.: Yes, I'm aware anyone with half a brain can simply link to Wikipedia. I just don't feel like reiterating widely-known arguments.

To give you the benefit of the doubt: the parent is using the 170 IQ points figure relative to the current average intelligence of people.

Of course, if you're actually splitting hairs, then we could start talking about how the IQ metric, to begin with, is antiquated BS. But, of course, we won't have to go there, right?

I see your point, and tend to agree, however saying...

...kind of makes your original argument a bit moot, considering the proposed mathematical model really only applies to QM interactions ;)

So, to reiterate, is the Singularity near? A little more so than it was yesterday, but that's just about it.

P.S.: Sorry if it seemed like I was stealing your fire. I, too, have to wonder what feats this and other related new Maths are capable of accomplishing.

You miss the point: until we can violate the current model of relativity (i.e. somebody invents a Tachyon-based computer), or something equally as wild, there is no way to "shortcut" our way into simulating interactions at that level with that kind of scale without spending orders of magnitude more, in this case, space-time.

To put it another way: you can't use Newton's Law of Gravitation to derive a general solution to a problem set up by that very equation.

Or, to stretch the analogy even further: you can't use a word in its own definition.

The problem with this statement: Moore's Law was formulated (as an empirical approximation) in the current age of Physics. Simulating any meaningfully complex high-level system, such as intelligence, with particle-sized granularity/precision requires Physics that delves deeper than those particles themselves; i.e. simulating particles with particles is, well, just plain redundant, and might as well just be done experimentally.

So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

No, that's called Accessory to Murder.

In a sense, you're right, modern Philosophy doesn't have much immediate value; Philosophy has never even had tangible value, immediate or otherwise. The value that Philosophy has, and always has had, is in refining how we perceive--and thus subconsciously process--this strange realm we call reality. It's a subtle effect, but it's definitely there and quite pervasive. Take the study of ethics, for instance: I think we can agree that John Rawls is considerably more "modern" than most of Philosophy, but yet his arguments shed light on swath of ethical structures that had never been before categorized in such a way.

The fact is, philosophy is literally everywhere that there are living, thinking people: Politicians' worldviews dictate policy decisions. Mathematicians' worldviews direct and inspire new mathematical mechanisms. Scientists' worldviews drive paradigm shifts. Joe Nobody's worldview lets him eat pork and beans on a Friday night. There's nowhere you can go without running into it.

Our own cognitive abilities are far more malleable and prone to deception than it seems most people realize. The fruits of studying Philosophy, even if on the side, aren't found by merely understanding the arguments posited by philosophers, but in developing sane and contiguous perceptions of reality.