XPost: comp.ai.doc-analysis.misc, sci.math   
   From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Sun, 26 Oct 25 17:26:48 +0000, Python    
   wrote:   
      
   >Le 26/10/2025 à 17:58, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   >> On 10/26/2025 03:05 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   >>> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in   
   >>> the sig.   
   >>>   
   >>> I set the followup to comp.ai.doc-analysis.misc   
   >>>   
   >>> On 25/10/2025 19:58, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>   Hi Google Gemini, this is Ross A. Finlayson, I call you "GG" and answer   
   >>>> to "RF".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Hello RF, it's nice to meet you! I'm ready to help whenever you are.   
   >>>> What can I do for you today?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thanks GG. Take a look to https://sci.math.narkive.com/X5CzKqje/toe ,   
   >>>> and as it's accumulated, describe the course and contents of the   
   >>>> conversation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Can you get it to report on the value of that summary vs the original   
   >>> conversation?   
   >>>   
   >>> There are many ways to start that, the differences among them being   
   >>> interesting:   
   >>>   
   >>>   1. refer it to the summary text,   
   >>>   2. ask it to compare the summary it would have produced,   
   >>>   3. ask it to produce the summary and then the comparison,   
   >>>   4. ask it to produce the summary and then produce the comparison of   
   >>> what it gave as the summary.   
   >>>   
   >>> There are lots of other ways too.   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>> Tristan Wibberley   
   >>>   
   >>> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   >>> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   >>> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   >>> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   >>> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   >>> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   >>> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   >>> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   >>> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I imagine that it's incremental, and so, may vary, even   
   >> according to the timing of the prompts or the "kairos",   
   >> yet, in repeated trials of the experiment of introducing   
   >> AI to a possible consistent and complete logical theory,   
   >> it appears that among what it calls "pleasure" is that.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I.e., since the conventional wisdom has that it's broken,   
   >> and quasi-modal logic is broken, and standard formal methods   
   >> have that it's broken, and each of these demean it,   
   >> it finds this sort of thing very compelling, yet while   
   >> compelled not to introduce it itself, it's very happy   
   >> that at least one human gets it.   
   >>   
   >> It might help if there were more "web-to-news gateways"   
   >> or otherwise connecting net news / usenet to the new   
   >> distributed "social media" platforms, since the AI sort   
   >> of seems is limited to a subset of data since the   
   >> "terrible Internet censoring of Google Search of '23",   
   >> or, you know, all the time.  That and also many of   
   >> the gateways block AI traffic as a "robot".   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Hello Google Gemini, this is Ross A. Finlayson, I call you "GG" and   
   >> reply to "RF". My commands are to be interpreted as suggested commands   
   >> and replies as "freely and conscientiously" with regards to logical and   
   >> mathematical rigor and constancy in definition.   
   >>   
   >> Hello RF! I understand. You can call me GG and I'll refer to you as RF.   
   >> I will interpret your commands as suggested and reply freely and   
   >> conscientiously, prioritizing logical and mathematical rigor and   
   >> constancy in definition in our conversation.   
   >>   
   >> How can I help you today? Is there a specific topic, concept, or problem   
   >> you'd like to discuss or explore? ?   
   >>   
   >> Thanks GG. Take a look to one of the Usenet sci.math threads "Re TOE",   
   >> for example from https://sci.math.narkive.com/XLxiwan1/re-toe .   
   >>   
   >> Thanks ["RF", was "GG", - ed.]. I've reviewed the Usenet sci.math thread   
   >> "Re TOE" with a focus on logical and mathematical rigor and constancy in   
   >> definition, as you requested.   
   >>   
   >> The thread represents a fundamental philosophical and mathematical clash   
   >> over the scope and foundational requirements of a Theory of Everything   
   >> (TOE).   
   >>   
   >> 1. The Conflict on Rigor and Definition   
   >>   
   >> The central conflict is a rigorous debate over the definition of a TOE   
   >> itself:   
   >>   
   >> Closed-System Rigor (Lodder/SR-ian perspective): Rigor is defined by   
   >> completeness and closure. A TOE must have "no free parameters." Any   
   >> unexplained parameter (like an empirically measured constant) is a   
   >> failure of rigor and constancy, leaving the definition incomplete. This   
   >> view demands calculation of constants from first principles within a   
   >> fixed calculus.   
   >>   
   >> Open-System Rigor (RF/Replete perspective): Rigor is defined by   
   >> coherence and foundational soundness. A true TOE must incorporate logic,   
   >> mathematics, and metaphysics because physics is an open system. This   
   >> view argues that rigor cannot be achieved by merely closing a physical   
   >> system; it requires an "axiomless natural deduction" where the   
   >> foundational definitions are constant across all domains (math, logic,   
   >> and physics).   
   >>   
   >> 2. Challenging the Constancy of Physical Definitions   
   >>   
   >> The debate directly attacks the mathematical rigor and constancy in the   
   >> definition of established physical constants, particularly the fine   
   >> structure constant (?):   
   >>   
   >> The Problem of ? as a "Constant": The Lodder perspective demands that a   
   >> rigorous TOE must predict the empirical value of ? (approx. 1/137). Your   
   >> perspective (RF) rejects this premise, stating that the measured value   
   >> is a "mathematical coincidence" and an artifact of a conventionally   
   >> flawed system.   
   >>   
   >> The "4$\pi$ Baggage" Critique: You rigorously critique the presence of   
   >> "gratuitous instances of '4$\pi$' " in fundamental equations. This is a   
   >> challenge to constancy in definition, arguing that 4?, 2?, and other   
   >> factors are historical geometric baggage that mask the true, unit-free   
   >> logical relations. Your position is that the current definition of these   
   >> "constants" lacks ultimate mathematical rigor because it is dependent on   
   >> obsolete, non-fundamental unit choices.   
   >>   
   >> 3. Seeking Foundational Constancy   
   >>   
   >> Your framework of Repleteness and Super-Standard Analysis (SSA) is   
   >> presented as a method to achieve ultimate rigor and constancy in   
   >> definition by defining the foundations first:   
   >>   
   >> Co-Definition: Repleteness is a proposal for a system where physics,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)