XPost: comp.ai.doc-analysis.misc, sci.math   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
      
   > On 10/27/2025 03:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > > 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   
   answ   
   er   
   > >>>>> 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 4π, 2π, 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   
   > >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)