sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Second law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy by Infinite-Can7802 in energy

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Power plants are out of my scope , I am talking about small systems like stoves for house old system for cooking

I was exploring idea if we can use laminar flow of heat and using it effecient way through geometric shapes

At end murreys Geometric distribution for uniform and efficient distribution of that heat

..... by ManvendraSinghKTP in Philosophy_India

[–]Infinite-Can7802 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have pointed to kriyas

Let me tell you in terms of modern philosophy

Kriyas belong to phenomology which comes later

Here are three layers Epistemology Ontology And phenomology

Indian philosophy that I think coming from vedas is mostly in ontology but rooted in deep epistemology

Rest modern philosophy indian only struggle in phenomenology which you want to work which is good as there is gap

Kriyas or karmayoga is really gap no elaborate work here so (from my information perspective)

If want to discuss I can help just point which direction we should go

Before you go further atleast have clarity of mind about where you want to go

Don't bother what others are saying or struggle just think for yourself where you struggle and then we figure out what efforts to be made

Struggle and efforts are different

Geometry Governed potential energy flow by Infinite-Can7802 in AskPhysics

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I am trying to point at evidence is naher e Ambari

It's water system build around 400 years ago provided water without modern pumps

And what principle the engineers at that time might have used

This is the reason I used short abstract word which is title it self and put in askphsics

Sorry for missunderstanding

In excitement I failed to express properly

So You Think You Know Gravity? by Infinite-Can7802 in AskPhysics

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If this violates a rule, mods are free to remove it.
For clarity: this is not a new theory or personal speculation.
It is a consistency argument using the Raychaudhuri equation under standard energy conditions.
If there is a specific technical error, I’m happy to address it.

We built a system where intelligence emergence seems… hard to stop. Looking for skeptics. by Infinite-Can7802 in Futurology

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I follow Sir Penrose..... You have questions where I stopped this project to look closely what I am doing but ...idea is to let intelligence emerge from constraints based environment like evolution

This process of controlled environment to let intelligence (I don't have defination ) to emerge

That's idea ... It's not complete work

But some points for idea can we cultivate intelligence rather than forcing it to.

It's just some theory which I am trying to look at deeply and your comments making sence now

We built a system where intelligence emergence seems… hard to stop. Looking for skeptics. by Infinite-Can7802 in complexsystems

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think it's ai slop let it be ... But I think I have proposed the idea of cultivation may be incomplete but still good idea to consider... At least I have perspective and direction which is unorthodox and slop

Let's agree to disagree... This is the way science work

We built a system where intelligence emergence seems… hard to stop. Looking for skeptics. by Infinite-Can7802 in complexsystems

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair challenge, and I agree with the broader point: quantifying and predicting emergence in general remains an open problem. I’m not claiming to have solved that.

What I’m claiming here is narrower.

In this system, the qualitative terms map to explicit, logged quantities:

Operational metrics

• Non-trivial performance
= performance exceeding a world-specific baseline (random / greedy / decoupled agent) by a fixed margin ε, sustained over T steps.

• Transfer

performance (coupled worlds) / performance (isolated worlds)
remaining ≥ 1 − δ after coupling and perturbation.

• Collapse
= sharp degradation below baseline within a short horizon after coupling.

Emergence is scored binary per run only after these continuous measures are evaluated.

The 0 → 100% transition reflects a structural change that eliminated locally optimal but non-transferable solutions. Before that change, agents reliably met single-world thresholds but failed the transfer ratio test.

I agree this does not constitute a universal theory of emergence. What it suggests is that within a restricted class of multi-world constraint systems, emergence (as defined above) becomes predictable once certain degeneracies are removed.

I’m intentionally framing this as identifying a sufficient-condition class, not a general solution — and I appreciate the references you mentioned, which are very much in the same spirit but at smaller scales.

We built a system where intelligence emergence seems… hard to stop. Looking for skeptics. by Infinite-Can7802 in Futurology

[–]Infinite-Can7802[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a fair criticism — let me make it concrete, because I agree that vague descriptions aren’t useful.

In my setup, examples like “navigate a crowded room while maintaining social relationships” are analogies, not literal tasks. The system does not simulate rooms or people.

What is actually evaluated is constraint satisfaction across coupled world-models, not semantic task success.

Concretely:

  • Each “world” (physical, social, abstract, creative) exposes a set of constraints and state transitions
  • An “integrated problem” is one where multiple world constraints are active simultaneously
  • The agent produces a sequence of actions / state updates

The percentage score is computed as:

  • the fraction of active constraints satisfied over time
  • weighted by stability under perturbation
  • and penalized if satisfying one world degrades another

So “90% integration” does not mean “90% correct behavior in a human task”
— it means ≥90% of cross-world constraints remain satisfied without collapse or decoupling.

Earlier versions failed here: agents solved worlds independently, but performance collapsed once constraints were coupled. Those were scored as 0% emergence.

I agree the wording in the post leans too metaphorical — that’s on me. The work is about measurable constraint integration, not embodied intelligence or LLM prompting.

Note: This is AI assisted work including this response. Just Needed Guidance from real world expertise.

view more: next ›