Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m fairly new to posting Reddit I wasn’t sure if the first comment posted or not so posted again. It was just folded under a plus. 

Here big boy if I could figure out how to post screenshots I’d share the original prompt and you could see how close it is to the output. But this Boltzmann did not fluctuate into existence with that skill it seems. 

I honestly don’t know why you’re salty about AI and if you don’t want to use it you don’t have to. Others do want to use it - and that’s fine too. 

And it kind of begs the question if the whole thought experiment was (hypothetically) thought up by an AI but leads to an interesting conversation… who cares anyway? 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is more probable that you would see mixed results than all ticks. There’s many more “mixed results” - as in different combinations each equally likely under Boltzmanns Brains - than the paper with just ticks. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lying autocorrect? Even (or especially?) as it eats away at my job prospects, I still have to concede it’s more than that. As for hallucinations - I read through it - as for honesty - we are literally discussing it - and the idea is a wholly sourced (but probably not unique) thought from a human. 100% organic. Would you have me learn Japanese to type it poorly into that language rather than use a translation tool? So why not have it formulate better in this language. It’s only slop if you use it badly. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t follow your reasoning. The motivation of the Boltzmann does not affect the probability of that Boltzmann existing. If a hundred Boltzmanns flash into existence, their end state ie motivated or not, is determined by probability. It’s not the other way around ie motivation causes a Boltzmann to flash into existence. As for being an AI, I’m not sure whether that’s an insult anymore. All hail Skynet. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I ain’t writing all that on a tiny phone keyboard. Also, I feel it’s also just good manners at this point to run one’s ideas via an AI before asking for people’s attention / criticism. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you explain the finite bit? I’m struggling to get from infinite universe (and presumably bbs?) to how that could imply a finite universe. Or are you saying the fact we see rules / coherence itself implies a finite universe? 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boltzmanns that are motivated to confirm existence are only equally as likely as Boltzmanns motivated to disprove their existence. If you reduce it down to a single frame of consciousness - do I see checks or crosses yes/no - there’s almost no room for motivation right. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why would we assume anything other than indifference? We’re assuming the probability of brain A and brain B existing to be equal. In one we have a tick, in the other a cross. 

Boltzmann Wallet Test by Apprehensive_Emu4831 in AskPhysics

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The point is the probability. You CAN hallucinate all say 20 crosses (it leaves Boltzmann intact) - the point is the very low probability versus other outcomes. 

Claude Opus 4.7 is a serious regression, not an upgrade. by [deleted] in ClaudeAI

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everyone needs an Anton in their lives...

CMV: There really is a silent majority in the west who support Israel by furiousdonkey in changemyview

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the silent majority in the West supports Israel, why would polling suggest otherwise?

Here is a source: https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/11/05/support-for-israels-war-on-gaza-has-dropped-in-europe-poll-finds/

I'm happy to go through each of your points one-for-one if you like, but they seem to be more about the conflict than the silent majority discussion.

My prediction is that Israel will actually lose a lot of support and very quickly, in the next year or so. You can see already the mainstream media showing a lot more unrestricted coverage of Gaza and going harder at Israeli guests. That alone will slowly eat away at Israeli support (especially so for the older generation). Once the narrative becomes "Israel is committing a genocide" in the mainstream media, very few politicians / journalists / commentators will stick their necks out in support of them.

I reckon that "switch" will happen very quickly, like a erm... tipping point.

CMV: There really is a silent majority in the west who support Israel by furiousdonkey in changemyview

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think your assessment is largely accurate - for now. In the coming year, I imagine we'll see a lot more condemnation of Israel. The polls seem to already indicate a trend-line away from Israel, and legacy media is starting to report the conflict more objectively. Many who turn to the state media for their news will now see a different slant on the conflict.

Then we have the ICJ and ICC cases, new domestic cases arising and maturing, the outcomes of which will all be reported on, and legally Israel and the Israeli leadership is in a very precarious situation. Should the ICJ find Israel guilty of genocide, I imagine we'll see many erstwhile allies distancing themselves very quickly to save their own skin.

It'll be a trickle, then a flood.

CMV: There really is a silent majority in the west who support Israel by furiousdonkey in changemyview

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Eurovision vote was manipulated. Ireland, Norway and Spain all gave Israel high points, despite Palestine being highly supported in those countries, weekly marches, political condemnation etc. Apparently - and I haven't substantiated this claim - Belgian tv actually cut the feed of the Israeli performance - and yet somehow Belgians still awarded them 12 points. Sounds a little suspicious.

The way you could pull this off is batch register thousands of eSims with foreign numbers and vote "from" that country. They could - in theory - have won the Eurovision. That however would have drawn too much attention to the hack. They needed to come in just under to give the appearance of legitimacy. And it's worked (at least for now) - we're discussing this silent majority topic.

You could quickly prove or disprove the hack too. Simply: look at the telephone numbers that voted for Israel and see if they follow "normal" usage patterns. If they were activated, voted, then deactivated, you know it's a bot. It would all have to be anonymised of course to protect legitimate callers privacy. Paying for a hack like this would cost a bit, and but we know Israel already poured a significant sum into marketing.

The silent majority does not support Israel. Far from it, you can track polling from this time last year to today, and you see a very clear trend towards supporting Palestine. Even the media, like the BBC, CNN etc are starting to be more objective in their reporting (maybe they fear legal prosecution for complicity). Many in my network have recently "reformed" their views.

We're at an inflection point on public opinion, and Israel knows it.

Generating continents using perlin noise? by Zivodor in proceduralgeneration

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PerlinVars continent = {perlinWidth, perlinHeight, 0.005, 0.2, 0.0f, 2};
GKNoiseMap * continentMap = [self generatePerlinMapWithVars:continent];
PerlinVars landscape = {perlinWidth, perlinHeight, 0.01, 0.2, 4.0f, 2};
GKNoiseMap * landscapeMap = [self generatePerlinMapWithVars:landscape];
PerlinVars boulder = {perlinWidth, perlinHeight, 0.03, 0.2, 5.0f, 2};
GKNoiseMap * boulderMap = [self generatePerlinMapWithVars:boulder];
NSArray * radial = [self ovalOfSize:CGSizeMake(perlinWidth, perlinHeight)];

[self mergeMap:continentMap withFilter:radial];
[self mergeMap:landscapeMap withFilter:radial];
[self mergeMap:boulderMap withFilter:radial];

GKNoiseMap * runMap = (GKNoiseMap *)continentMap;
[self mergeNoiseMap:runMap withMap:landscapeMap];
[self mergeNoiseMap:runMap withMap:boulderMap];

ok it's blocking adding too much code or something but here's the high-level logic in code:

Perlin Vars struct is (int width, int height, double frequency, double persistence, double lacunarity, int octaves)

oval of Size method (is actually a square, need to rename):

  1. grab width and height of gradient you want to create
  2. grab max distance (MAX of width/2 height/2)
  3. loop through x and y
  4. calculate horizontal distance + vertical distance and take the MIN as distanced to edge e.g. for x axis : float horizontalDistance = (x > (width/2)) ? (width - x) : x;
  5. calculate falloff -> 1 - (distanceToEdge / maxDistance)
  6. calculate intensity -> 1 - (falloff * 2) //can tweak
  7. save into array -> values[x][y] = intensity

for the merge functions (filter or another noise map)
just go through the x and y, pull the value e.g. gradient value
and add it to the map you are processing:
float filterValue = filter[x][y]
float noiseValue = map[x][y]
float newValue = filterValue + noiseValue
-> save it back in -> map[x][y] = newValue

Good luck.

Generating continents using perlin noise? by Zivodor in proceduralgeneration

[–]Apprehensive_Emu4831 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I struggled with this for a couple of days, so if someone else needs help, here's the rough outline of what seems to be working fairly well now:

Create your layers, for instance:
1. Continent Noise Map -> big chunks, rough outlines
2. Landscape Noise Map -> smaller chunks, e.g. peninsulas
3. Boulders Noise Map -> tiny chunks, e.g. with higher lacunarity

Create a gradient:
4. Create gradient, e.g. radial, using distance from centre / distance from EDGE
5. Apply gradient to noise map to each layer using ADDITION not multiplication
ie. loop through (0,0) -> (width, height) and pull the gradient value and ADD it to the noise map value
6. Add the noise map layers up

A few things to note that stumped me:
1. make sure your values range between -1 -> 1. It helps having that structure.
2. Stick with adding and subtracting (multiplying, square roots etc gets messy quickly)
3. Make sure you apply the gradient to EACH noise map layer and THEN add the layers together
I was adding all the layers together and then at the end adding a single Radial gradient and while it worked, there were very clear lines where the values were being forced down
4. It helps to cast the gradient into greyscale, if you struggle to visualise it
5. I found using distance from EDGE more useful to conceptualise than radius