>>13633095Your reach some limit/asymptote after which your perception/learning isn't actually faster, because it would be unintelligent to try to ascertain patterns from literally just 1 or perhaps 2 samples.
With 2 (or other n samples that have a "low incidence"), you can simulate different scenarios in your head and treat them prospectively, and only collapse them back into a smaller tree/singular possibility as further samples come in.
With just 1 sample of information, increased IQ would still be useful, but even parallelized, agnostic simulations to make up for the low information state aren't sufficient anymore. Rather, modelling is now based purely on heuristics.
Whereas above method renders only fuzzy/quantum results (meaning it isn't "bad" if you get one wrong), with 1 sample, a heuristic algorithm will produce useful results with a definitive probability distribution, making them inherently a more risky/greater commitment.
But this is were the asymptote rears its demonic head: one would need exponentially more IQ/processing power to, in its logical ad absurdum end state, emulate the entire universe for yielding "almost certainly true" information from just 1 sample.
So for the topic of this thread, I would say the difference of mental work one can do is much more significant in 100 IQ > 500 IQ beings, compared to 500 IQ > 2000 IQ beings.
