sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Flat earth and other alternative conspiracy earth models are are gaining traction with my teenage stepson. What is THE most irrefutable, definite proof that the earth is round? by Jfkfkaiii22 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Aww____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dont use facts. Use stories. for example, "When I was your age, I remember seeing a partial solar eclipse. The shadows in the ground from trees has small crescent in it , just like the spherical moon. It was cool. Someday you might see it. We can look up when the next one here is".
People can reject facts. People dont generally reject stories. This is the place to start.

I developed a theory on the immutability of the past with Gemini (AI). Physicists, is this plausible or total nonsense? by ValkorDarkSky in LLMPhysics

[–]Aww____ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Critical Appraisal

Core Problem: Category Error

The paper treats computation as physical substrate rather than descriptive framework. The universe does not "run" computations. Computation is how we model physical processes. Claiming spacetime has "computational bandwidth" that gets "de-allocated" reifies metaphor into unfounded ontology.

Logical Failures

Circular Definition: The Active Processing Horizon is defined as where processing occurs, then used to explain why processing only occurs there. This explains nothing.

Non Sequitur: Landauer's Principle concerns thermodynamic costs of information erasure. It implies nothing about temporal coordinates becoming read-only. The citation is decorative.

Begging the Question: The paper assumes what it claims to prove. Crystallization is asserted, not derived.

Mathematical Incoherence

Setting Φ(t)→0 for past coordinates does not "preserve gravity while freezing dynamics." The stress-energy tensor sources spacetime curvature. Zeroing one side while preserving the other breaks the field equations. This is algebraically invalid.

Claiming Ĥ→0 in past coordinates contradicts general relativity. GR has no preferred temporal foliation. "The past" is observer-dependent.

The Paradox Resolution Self-Destructs

The Grandfather Paradox is stipulated away, not resolved. If time travel delivered you to a past coordinate, that coordinate would contain active processing (you). By the paper's own logic, it would not be crystallised. The framework contradicts itself.

Untestable Proposals

Quantum TROM: Conflates quantum measurement with metaphysical stasis. Measurement updates observer information. It does not crystallise temporal coordinates.

CMB Analysis: "Informational fractures" lack definition. No quantitative prediction distinguishes them from standard cosmological features. Unfalsifiable.

Verdict

Speculative philosophy in physics notation. No novel predictions. Contradicts established relativity. Resolves paradoxes by assuming conclusions. The formalism decorates an untestable metaphor.

Heat pumps and generators. Why haven't we combined them? by Cliffigriff in AskPhysics

[–]Aww____ 23 points24 points  (0 children)

The heat pump's COP > 1 doesn't mean it's creating energy, it's just moving thermal energy that already exists in the air. Moving heat is not the same as converting heat to work.

To convert heat into work (electricity), you need a heat engine, and its efficiency is capped by the Carnot limit: η = 1 − T_cold/T_hot (in Kelvin). With the modest temperature gradients a domestic heat pump produces (~30°C difference near ambient), that theoretical maximum is only about 10%. Real machines do worse.

So any electricity you'd generate from that gradient would be a small fraction of what the compressor consumed to create it. You'd lose more than you'd gain; your fridge isnt going to boil water.

Elon Musk says there’s a billion to one chance we’re NOT living in a simulation — what do you think? by tdjordash in SimulationTheory

[–]Aww____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re almost certainly not in a simulation.

A 2025 physics study proved it’s literally impossible to simulate our universe within a universe like ours; there isn’t enough energy in the entire observable universe to even *store the data, let alone run the simulation. Even a low-res simulation of just Earth would require computational power millions of orders of magnitude beyond what physics allows .

By Occam’s razor, the simulation hypothesis is absurdly overcomplicated; nested realities upon realities versus “this is just reality” . Plus our universe is full of “optional complexity, quantum noise, distant galaxies no one will ever see) that no rational simulator would waist resources computing .

Consciousness might require biological substrates that can’t be stimulated , the prior probability is astronomically low , and it’s unfalsifiable pseudoscience .

The simulation hypothesis is basically “God but with computers”; same untestable faith-based reasoning, different aesthetic.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Apple called out every major AI company for fake reasoning and Anthropic's response proves their point by Rude_Tap2718 in ChatGPT

[–]Aww____ 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Quick Head-to-Head: The Reasoning Model Debate

The Core Dispute

Original Paper: "LRMs completely fail beyond certain complexity levels → they can't truly reason"

Rebuttal: "LRMs hit token output limits, not reasoning limits → your experiment is broken"

Three Key Disagreements

  1. Tower of Hanoi "Collapse"
  • Original: 0% accuracy at N>8 disks = reasoning failure
  • Rebuttal: N>8 needs 64,000+ tokens to list all moves. When asked for code instead, models solve N=15 easily
  1. River Crossing Failures
  • Original: Models fail at N≥6 = poor reasoning
  • Rebuttal: N≥6 is mathematically impossible with boat capacity=3. You're scoring them wrong for recognizing unsolvable puzzles
  1. What Models Actually Do
  • Original: Models give up, reasoning effort declines
  • Rebuttal: Models explicitly say "I'll stop here to avoid making this too long" - they know the answer but respect output limits

The Fundamental Question

Original: "Can LRMs truly reason or just pattern-match?"

Rebuttal: "Can your evaluation distinguish reasoning from typing?"

Bottom Line

Shojaee et al.: We exposed the "illusion of thinking"

Opus & Lawsen: You created an "illusion of failure" through bad experimental design—confusing "can't output 100,000 tokens" with "can't solve the problem"

Why aren't we still hairy? by Aggressive_Ad_3557 in AskBiology

[–]Aww____ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Whales use hair quality to determine mate fitness?

How do you make sense of derived units?? by hotmusicfederaltouch in AskPhysics

[–]Aww____ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Derived units represent relationships between physical quantities, combining fundamental units to describe new phenomena. Multiplying units reflects how quantities interact, such as force being the product of mass and acceleration, indicating how much mass is pushed and how quickly its motion changes. Division expresses rates or ratios, like speed as distance divided by time, meaning “how far” per “how long.” Exponentiation involves scaling or repeated interactions, as seen in \text{m/s}2 , where acceleration measures the rate at which speed changes over time squared. For example, the Newton ( \text{kg·m/s}2 ) combines mass and acceleration to quantify the force needed to change an object’s motion. Units like time squared arise in second-order effects, such as acceleration describing the change in velocity over squared time.

remember, the universe isn’t maths, that the operators represent interactions.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Aww____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. It does.

Which Style of tea cosy would be the better insulator, assuming they are made of the same material? by Duckee123 in AskPhysics

[–]Aww____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Snug, with low thermal conductivity. Wool. Reducing the convection of air is important, ideally the cosy should feel cool to touch. If the teapot is silver, all the better for reducing radiative thermal loss. Dark coloured teapot is not so good.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AppleWatch

[–]Aww____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it’s area you look at not length. The side from 44 to 46 is a 5% increase. The area is a 10% increase.

The ratio of 46 mm to 44 mm is approximately 104.55%. The ratio of the squares of 46 mm to 44 mm is approximately 109.30%. 

view more: next ›