XPost: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity
From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 14:15:35 -0800, The Starmaker
wrote:
>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.
>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
