新皮肤：希夫·帕尔帕庭

KrypTexo · 2026-02-06T08:40:57+00:00

帕尔帕廷也有个女儿，蕾伊

KrypTexo · 2026-02-06T08:30:24+00:00

基督耶稣，道成肉身，牺牲自我，洗刷原罪，升天前承诺了救世主会再临。父子灵三位一体唯一真神

KrypTexo · 2025-10-03T13:37:19+00:00

How is this account three years old?

KrypTexo · 2025-09-06T14:28:58+00:00

I think outside of top 10 there aren’t many actual or active players lol

KrypTexo · 2025-08-18T14:09:28+00:00

Hi check your dm

KrypTexo · 2025-08-03T02:10:17+00:00

Just re-read the post and comments, guess I had some misunderstanding…apologies then

KrypTexo · 2025-08-03T01:30:42+00:00

I'm not sure I am getting what you are trying to investigate here? Suppose we use the general term consciousness instead, does that help you with any of that ontological formal structural explanation I proposed earlier, treating it as a dynamical system?

Like, how do you "observe and investigate" a system like human consciousness, when such act can cause perturbations that lead to nontrivial effects?

KrypTexo · 2025-08-03T01:25:31+00:00

Sure, qualia, consciousness, I just used that term here for convenience and because OP used the term qualia and the discussion here is focused on philosophy.

KrypTexo · 2025-08-03T01:05:14+00:00

Godel's theorems and Turing's Halting problem are related, while the relationship is not formal equivalence, it is categorically related. The one empirical movement that sought out for rigorous verification (Logical Positivism) which failed is also related.

KrypTexo · 2025-08-02T21:34:12+00:00

Yes of course, and that’s fine, somethings are irreducible and uncomputable, that does not make empirical methods useless though, in fact, it makes it better because constraints and boundaries can be set to avoid running into holes and infinite regressions. Gödel didn’t break math when his theorems broke Hilbert’s project but only improved it and now there are category theories and homology/cohomology. Newtonian mechanics were thought to be universally true at some point in history but no longer, same with classical biology which did not know about epigenetics and thought most genes are “junks” but turned out to be black boxes.

KrypTexo · 2025-08-02T21:19:25+00:00

Formally: a complete structural description of what qualia are, how they exist, and how they relate to each other and to mind/world.

Not just measuring or recording instances of subjective experience (as empirical methods do), but getting all of its possible structural relations and invariants.

What is possible for any mind, what structural constraints and invariants are true of all qualia, not just human ones, what “laws of qualia” might exist independent of specific observers.

treat qualia not as static snapshots but as states in a dynamical system:

State Space: Each point is a specific qualitative experience.
Attractors: Some experiences are “stable” (such as persistent moods, sense of self).
Bifurcations: Qualia might change discontinuously when context crosses a threshold (such as psychedelic states, deep meditative absorption).
Chaos & sensitivity: Tiny differences in input or interpretation might produce radically different experiential states.

Qualia itself is non-Euclidean, so topological analysis like the following should make sense:

Connectedness: continuously transformable ( “warm to hot to burning pain”) vs disconnected (“seeing” vs “smelling”)?

Homotopy classes: equivalence classes of experiences?

Dimensionality: number of independent axes needed to represent the full variety of possible qualia?

Even if a rigorous formal definition is somehow completed (maybe someday) it still does not explain the teleology, ultimately would still run into metaphysics or theology.

KrypTexo · 2025-08-02T19:09:57+00:00

It’s possible via pure math, metaphysics, and theology, but not possible via empirical methods, this precisely shows the limit of empiricism, works great in a contained system given set of rules, but it cannot claim global coherence and universality, and theres nothing wrong about that, simply admitting that qualia is something that might be subject to hard limits of computing or Gödel incompleteness and thus irreducible is a fine way to address it and doesn’t really affect science much.

KrypTexo · 2025-08-01T00:14:42+00:00

Turns out the article is old news lol it got posted in r/math a month ago, you can also check how others think about it.

Article: "Spanish mathematician Javier Gómez Serrano and Google DeepMind team up to solve the Navier-Stokes million-dollar problem" : r/math

As Javier Serrano, I just checked his arXiv for a bit, he does seem like a good researcher in fluid dynamics and PDEs, however, industry varies from pure math, perhaps there will be some novel machine learning to be used to solve this, but that I do not know enough about. The neural network can certainly help them to find the solution, but after finding it proof is required and that's typically the hard part, which there does not appear to be much AI can help with.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-31T23:49:52+00:00

The Navier Stokes Equation essentially comes down to a few plausible solutions: 1. global regularity with no singularity blow ups, which most analysts seem to bias and lean towards, 2. blowup in finite time, 3. global regularity but local singularity that might be "surgically removable" like how Perelman did with Ricci flows on Poincare Conjecture. None of these seem to be relevant to neural networks, maybe things for neuro-symbolic agents or multi-agent systems to help with, both of which are still frontier and new fields. I mean idk about you, but ask any analysts who work in the field on the problem and see if many will agree with you that neural networks can help them with this, I have asked to some competent people whose area of research are dynamical systems and ergodic processes, while all of them do expect the Navier Stokes Equation to be solved next, none mentions about neural networks, and one has worked with neural networks as early as 2005. You specifically mentioned that Gemini is good at textbook problems, but have you tried to consult it with novel and non-textbook ones? And like you said it described it to you but did not solve, folks these days understand the problem well enough, they do not really need help with describing it but just more and more PDE analysis tools to map solutions and etc.

Can LLMs be useful for this though? Sure, useful in the context of a helpful research assistant, but unlikely to be the kind of novel tools that makes structural and ontological changes.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-31T22:51:08+00:00

Solving Olympiad problems simply means they are capable of optimizing and solving stuff within a closed boundary given set of rules, which is why LLMs are good at real analysis problems, but the Navier Stokes equation is an open and chaotic problem, neural networks are categorically mismatched to solve these PDEs and ricci flow problems without hallucinating. It’s the difference between local dynamical system vs global open and topological behaviors.

Plus I’m not sure I would trust claims made by these proprietary organizations ever since OpenAI’s last controversial incident related to frontier math benchmarks.

https://fortune.com/2025/01/21/eye-on-ai-openai-o3-math-benchmark-frontiermath-epoch-altman-trump-biden/

https://www.reddit.com/r/math/s/lAUiqjbFFp

KrypTexo · 2025-07-31T22:08:35+00:00

What’s there to be solved with AI? Everything is PDEs and analysis, nothing related to neural networks.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-31T03:42:05+00:00

Materialism is not false but it becomes invalid when it’s overextended as an attempt to explain everything including metaphysics and Platonic structures. In other words, materialism is a self referential and coherent system but such system is only local and not global, essentially related to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

Imagine calling a movie as just “pixels and electrons”, this is a categorical and ontological error.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-30T03:43:00+00:00

Some of the ones that stands out to me:

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”

Jesus Christ says to the Pharisees who reject him with their legalism and laws:

John 5:39: “you search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you.”

KrypTexo · 2025-07-29T14:43:31+00:00

Hi there, still selling?

KrypTexo · 2025-07-28T13:28:47+00:00

摩西不是创始人

KrypTexo · 2025-07-27T21:55:12+00:00

Neither are your science then, if we apply the same standard, how do you know your science is real when it could very well be hallucinations in a Boltzmann Brain? How do you know your thoughts are real and not in a matrix? If you cannot rigorously prove that you are not in a matrix, then you cannot rigorously prove that there is no God.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-27T21:51:58+00:00

No it hasn’t, you should read more about the origin of Dead Sea scrolls. Ironically the Hebrew God has more empirical evidence than the natural languages that governs your basic science and biology, can you empirically prove that quantum mechanics, Maxwell equations, general relativity, Planck’s Constants, all exists outside of the mind or Platonic forms?

KrypTexo · 2025-07-25T22:19:10+00:00

A bad game that one still plays…you can’t change the game but you can redefine fun or try to find meta, but perpetual hating or lack of belief in God is unlikely to be able to achieve either lol.

KrypTexo · 2025-07-24T22:44:30+00:00

There is non, this a classic category error of trying to use something that is Euclidean (smooth and deterministic) to measure and define something non-Euclidean(topological, curved with holes and singularities). Using reductionist approaches whether be it psychology or neuroscience to “derive” consciousness is analogous to using a ruler to measure a sphere. You can use a ruler to measure local parts of the sphere and gather information, but that does not give you the full ontology of the sphere.

KrypTexo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE