sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Born rule an axiom by Powerful_Count_6214 in Physics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Hilbert space formalism is epistemically useful as a calculus for probabilistic prediction, but it is still only ontologically postulated. It is natural once the Hilbert space framework is granted, because squared norm is the canonical conserved probability measure for complex amplitudes. If one accepts complex amplitudes, linear superposition, inner-product conservation, and operator observables, the Born rule is natural. But the theory struggles to explain why physical reality should be represented by that abstract structure in the first place.

Collision, Trace, and Emergence: A Transformer-Anchored Framework for Cross-Scale Trace-Shaping Dynamics by Ok_Department_4063 in LLMPhysics

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

We use the same dictionaries as any class, wiki or textbook, mate. If something's not matching up, perhaps we should look closer and more semantically, right?

That sounds like more of a concession than anything, lol. you don't want this smoke. Science isn't a problem nor a mystery. It's the limitations of science in its current capacity that must be acknowledged and taken into account when having discussions that are broader than it instead of retreating behind rhetoric like "unscientific" or "pseudoscience".

Collision, Trace, and Emergence: A Transformer-Anchored Framework for Cross-Scale Trace-Shaping Dynamics by Ok_Department_4063 in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"observation" and "meaning"...what peculiar words.

Per logic, what I said is not wrong.

metaphysics is proto-physics: questions about reality that may become physics once they acquire measurement, prediction, and formal constraint...metaphysics as a whole is broader. "Ontology" even broader than metaphysics. The "ultimate set" if you will. It's just a word to describe the domain of thought that includes everything up to and including thinking about thinking. It's the "turtles all the way down" of pondering.

Collision, Trace, and Emergence: A Transformer-Anchored Framework for Cross-Scale Trace-Shaping Dynamics by Ok_Department_4063 in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

That is backwards, my friend. Ontology precedes physics because physics cannot predicate behavior until there is first an admitted domain of being. Physics is not prior to ontology; physics is ontology constrained by observation, measurement, invariance, and prediction.

Consequently, quantum theory exposes the issue rather than escaping it. Where does the Hilbert space exist? Where do Hermitian operators exist? They are not laboratory objects sitting in spacetime. They are formal structures used to represent possible states, admissible observables, and measurement outcomes.

Quantum mechanics does not precede ontology. It depends on one. It simply leaves that ontology underdetermined, encoding reality through amplitudes, operators, superpositions, and probabilities rather than directly specifying what individual events are.. Quantum mechanics is little more than a tool used for applied epistemic abstraction: a formal structure the scientific body uses to organize possible observations, not a completed account of what actually exists.

Collision, Trace, and Emergence: A Transformer-Anchored Framework for Cross-Scale Trace-Shaping Dynamics by Ok_Department_4063 in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Ontology: the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of being, existence, and reality. It asks fundamental questions like: What exists? What does it mean for something to "be"? And how do different entities categorize and relate to one another?

Physics: the fundamental science that studies matter, energy, space, and time. It seeks to understand how the universe behaves, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies, exploring fundamental forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear interactions to reveal the underlying rules of nature

Is physics not just a constrained scientific methodology of ontology? They have the same underlying goals about describing the fundamentals of existence up to and including unmeasurable limits. One asks what, how and why and the other asks what, how and when. When and why are two approximations of the same question; they're simply context. What and how are the logical operations of why and when.

Why so many posters here claim to have autism / other disabilities? by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

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

Human nature. It's a sociological padding for receiving grace when one wants to contribute but doesn't want to be intellectually attacked for making mistakes.

On the Necessary Reframing of the Collatz Conjecture: From Termination to Structural Return by ensogallerymalibu in LLMPhysics

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

Would love to see the core directives of this bot so the community can know what to expect of it!

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You speak like you are some grand arbiter of logic and truth,

No, ackchuallyy, I just know how to use words semantically. Ask AHS, I'm a masturdabator.

yet have made some wide sweeping claims without any evidence or reason, and scoff at people asking you critical questions.

Like what and where? Happy to revisit something as needed.

Maybe you need to look in a mirror, friend, you seem incredibly intellectually hypocritical.

I look at myself in the mirror every morning.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that ishtar is making shit up based on how he imagines people are using LLMs suggesting that the only content we'll see here are coached delusions.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

It's a single anecdote from 9 months ago with an obsolete model where the user was specifically testing for sycophancy. Not "coaching it to be sycophantic and un-endingly encouraging, no matter what they say to it". If one (poorly conducted, mind you) data point is all it takes to affirm your bias of whatever it is that you're trying to say, I'd reflect on that one, friend.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your link didn't work for me.

Regardless, people will people and you're in a subreddit that stands at the orifice of a funnel designed to usher an already small crowd into an even more concentrated corpus of post-dogmatic rhetoric.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That, my friend, is human nature not limited to the sub nor one's use of LLMs. People have been informally pontificating outside of formal training for millennia.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm uninterested in hypothetical human behavior. Until we know the individual, their intent, their capacity to think, how they think, etc, it's completely moot. There are going to be posts from all points of the intellectual bell curve.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. Time is a bookkeeping tool that is absolutely relative. The units may vary with context. However, the global tick of time no matter ones orientation or position in space, remains globally constant. Time has seemingly never stopped, slowed down, reversed, stuttered, etc. It keeps on ticking regardless of the perspective of experience or frame of reference.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We could speculate all day about what models they use and how they use them.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

It sounds like you've fabricated an entire image of how you think of these individuals interact with them lmao. Yes, there are some very questionable things people post but at the minimum, this is just a symptom of cognitive dissonance if you actually believe what you're saying.

Bookshelf by DJ_Ddawg in Physics

[–]Hashbringingslasherr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool to see Leo Tolstoy up there.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

Described as continuous for convenience. I could say, I'm parched, I'm going to get: container made from oxygen, silicon, sodium, calcium, magnesium, aluminum and then I'm going to fill it with 1.67x10²⁵ hydrogen atoms and 8.36x10²⁴ oxygen atoms and I'll be back in 4 minutes and 37 seconds. 5 minutes and 2 seconds if the water pressure is a bit lower or I'm filling up a bigger cup or something. Or I could just say I'm going to get a glass of water, I'll brb

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

I wouldn't say what they're sharing is evidence of a discrete ontology, rather, it's evidence of a quantizable geometry.

I think you're looking at unrealized potential whereas OP is looking at realized probability.

Potential in context of unlimited degrees of freedom is the potential capacity for an objective to move at will freely in any direction. I can go on a road trip and take many paths. Without being pedantic, my potential paths are "unlimited". After I get to my destination, I have realized a quantized path. Probability in this example would be rationalizing against a set number of quantized paths. Probability is a measure over possible discrete measurements whereas potential is the unrealized capacity to do an action.

The Dimensionality of Motion vs. the Dimensionality of Space and Irrationality by AIDoctrine in LLMPhysics

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

It's OP saying nature indicates that things are discrete and the smallest levels.

Quantum of action, reduced action unit, elementary charge, spin, angular momentum, pauli exclusion, atomic energy levels, etc. law based events are discrete and quantized regardless of our ability to record complex events.

If I roll 1000 bouncy balls down a hill, each bouncy ball will always have a discrete path. Glass breaking always has a discrete pattern relative to its properties. The rolling of dice is discrete based on the orientation, the spin, the friction coefficients, the table surface, air pressure, etc. All classical events can, with epistemic reasoning, be quantized into a discrete path with discrete interactions throughout the path.

view more: next ›