XPost: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity
From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:58:47 -0800, Ross Finlayson
wrote:
>On 11/23/2025 01:36 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/21/2025 11:42 PM, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2025 9:09 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2025 09:56 AM, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2025 6:15 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 08:56 AM, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 5:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 10:03 PM, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 2:49 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 01:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sam Altman, of Open Ai said, said, said that Ai..."They
>>>>>>>>>>> hallucinate
>>>>>>>>>>> ALL THE TIME!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *ALL* the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "ALL the time"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, everything below that RF posted are ...all hallucinations!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lucy in the sky with AI...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> GG in the sky with diamonds...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:10:06 -0800, The Starmaker
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you edited out all the ...hallucinations!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe he just doesn't know how logic according to reason works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The, "natural language understanding", or lack thereof,
>>>>>>>>>> includes a mental model of reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>> which of course is readily polluted by contradictory instructions,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "polluted" with being real instead being
>>>>>>>>> as perfect as you would like it to be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are "non-logical".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a difference between "non-logical" and "ignorant".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are limits to knowledge, yet, there are absolutes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "ideals" mathematically are yet "practically"
>>>>>>>> what is to be attained for what is obtained,
>>>>>>>> the "ideals" physically are usually as after "reductionism",
>>>>>>>> about the "super-classical" and often enough "non-linear",
>>>>>>>> then that it's agreeable that mathematics is easier than physics,
>>>>>>>> yet that mathematics _owes_ physics the "proper ideals".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Natural philosophers have that a theory of the world
>>>>>>>> as a physics is potentialistic, that it's a sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> _and_ a sum-of-potentials, and a least-action / least-gradient,
>>>>>>>> perfect continuum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "super-classical" it's usually called things like
>>>>>>>> super-fluidity, super-conductivity, and these kinds of
>>>>>>>> things, with regards to ideals like "immovable" and "unstoppable",
>>>>>>>> flow and flux and these kinds of things, "ideal components".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seeing some sticks you can start dreaming
>>>>>>> of a perfect rigid rod. You may think about
>>>>>>> it as about "rod by itself"; neverthless
>>>>>>> it doesn't exist and never will, though
>>>>>>> the concept may be useful. Neither your
>>>>>>> "pure logic by itself" does. Samely like
>>>>>>> with "perfect rod" - you can't say how it
>>>>>>> could work - because it couldn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "distinction" between "ideal philosopher" and
>>>>>> "practical physicist" is from many perspectives their projections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It's all relative" still has that "all" is an absolute -
>>>>>> "It-all's absolute".
>>>>>
>>>>> You can connect the letters into words
>>>>> and then words into phrases in many ways,
>>>>> but no matter how you do it - outside of
>>>>> human culture they're just meaningless
>>>>> streams of meaningless symbols.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can interact with our brains and affect
>>>>> our decisions. In a very sophisticated and
>>>>> highly organized way. Apart of that - there
>>>>> is nothing important about them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd recommend looking for a copy of the "Dictionary of
>>>> the History of Science".
>>>
>>>
>>> I know the history of science enough to recognize
>>> a pattern I'm familiar with from elsewhere.
>>>
>>> You know, when I'm encoding some objective soft
>>> into a computer - classes and objects I've planned
>>> appear in its memory, having some properties I've
>>> planned too. Science is doing something
>>> similar to us. Well, the whole concept of
>>> "objective programming" is something we
>>> copied from - science and similar things.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You know, the standard linear curriculum has to
>> be a lot of things to a lot of people. Then, the
>> fact that it's often a merely-partial invincibly-ignorant
>> inductive half-account after the severe abstraction the
>> mechanical reduction, is lost on a lot of people.
>> Something like "Dictionary of the History of Science",
>> and I haven't read "A Dictionary of the History of Science",
>> can help a lot showing that any major significant development
>> in mathematics or physics in thousands of years, is one of
>> two things: a major conceptual development or a
>> mollifying compromise downgrade. Also usually both.
>>
>> So, the idea of that there's a paradox-free reason
>> at all, sort of results at least one fact about truth
>> to begin, that it's true there's truth and it's true,
>> and that nothing that is true disagrees with itself,
>> yet even that results ex falso nihilum instead of that
>> "nothing, that is 'true', disagrees with itself", has
>> that as one reasoner put it "the fundamental joke of
>> logic is that logic is not a joke, and it's not funny",
>> has at least it's good.
>>
>>
>> Then, since quasi-modal logic is shown to be a bad joke,
>> then modern mathematics has at least a dozen ways to
>> show it keeps hitting itself, and the premier theories
>> of physic have been falsified seven sigmas and 120 orders
>> of magnitude with regards to each other, the the idea of
>> turning that over and filling it out as simply like a
>> hermit and guru with the greatest wisdom in the world,
>> that seems fair.
>>
>>
>
>The non-standard in arithmetic is about infinity, pretty much.
>
>Mathematical infinity, as everybody knows it, is supreme
>among numbers, while as well, in reflection, about zero.
>
>Then, why it's "extra-ordinary" and "super-standard" instead
>of non-standard, is similarly to how any kind of geometry
>is "super-Euclidean", not "non-Euclidean", then as with
>regards to various algebras and their discontinuities
>introduced, likes Connes' or normed rings, the super-standard
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
