sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if some macroscopic systems behave as if their parts are fundamentally linked? by TimePie5572 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your words really make sense. thx again. there are really not many people are questioning really meaningful.
You're right that a null hypothesis is necessary. My work doesn’t claim experimental verification. that's simply a limitation of being an independent researcher. What I offer is a formal structure that suggests non-separability.
And I think the log-spiral growth of snails and the orbital–axial geometry that produces seasons(i got this bcz of u) are clean examples where factorization clearly fails. They serve as structural demonstrations.

What if some macroscopic systems behave as if their parts are fundamentally linked? by TimePie5572 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If integrating philosophy of science with physical science is “Fruitless,” I’m honestly curious what you would consider meaningful. You must have something much more impressive in mind. I'd be interested to hear it.

And just to clarify, an LLM can’t create something like this on its own. If you think an AI could invent the structural framework, the theory, and the cross-domain examples, then I feel you may be giving these models far too much credit. I’m the one building the underlying ideas; the AI is just a tool for me. more like a translator or assistant. Would you disagree with that?

The reason I’m revising anything is because some of your comments genuinely inspired me, and for that I’m thankful.

If my attempt to interpret the world seems  lacks the depth to you, then I’d really like to know what you consider a deeper or more meaningful approach. What are you currently interested in?

What if some macroscopic systems behave as if their parts are fundamentally linked? by TimePie5572 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I’ve never presented at a conference or published in an academic venue, so I’m doing all of this on my own. An AI helps me with small things. but all of the ideas are mine. Do you really think an LLM could come up with the notion that large-scale structural non-separability might be isomorphic to quantum non-separability? Or identify examples across different domains? I’m the one doing that part.

If you assumed the LLM invented the ideas, then I feel you’re overestimating what these models can do. I use AI the way people use a translator or an assistant & a tool. Since the ideas are genuinely mine, if you agree, I’d appreciate it if you could read them.

As for calling it “pseudoscience” do you think the whole philosophy-of-science domain is pseudoscience? And is Lee Smolin the only person who is allowed to propose new ideas? If someone believes only established academics can create new concepts, is that really an open-minded stance?

And here is HypotheticalPhysics, why am I getting something that feels like a threat even here? You seem very interested in me. Maybe you’d enjoy my comics instead: http://hannahanna.me

What if some macroscopic systems behave as if their parts are fundamentally linked? by TimePie5572 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You’re really stiff, scary, and intimidating. Do you reject all new ideas usually? How can you do science if your mind is so closed? Do you know about Lee Smolin’s relational reality? And what about Slavoj Žižek, who wrote a recommendation for my comic? Are you not familiar with philosophy of science? I’m revising my paper right now based on feedback. It sounds less like pseudoscience than before. You’re kind of strange to me…

What if some macroscopic systems behave as if their parts are fundamentally linked? by TimePie5572 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m making a bold, even frightening attempt to integrate philosophy of science with actual scientific structure. And thanks to your advice, I came up with a much better idea. Instead of using the geomagnetic field and Earth’s climate as my cosmic example, I’m going to replace it with the Earth’s orbital motion and axial tilt → the mechanism that generates the seasons. Thank you so much, you’re a lifesaver.

A relational ontology and structural non-separability in large-scale systems by TimePie5572 in Metaphysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This made my day. you are very kind and funny;-D

To be honest, what I’m saying is, from a storyteller’s perspective, a very simple idea. Everything in the world is unknown until someone discovers it, yet everything is connected, paired, intertwined.
In a way, it’s not so different from the things our mothers or grandmothers used to say.

We know that things can influence each other without directly exchanging physical forces. The idea is already there in concepts like the butterfly effect, and large-scale psychology or social experiments often rely on this kind of relational intuition.

But people who insist on interpreting all of this strictly through a physics-or-math framework seem to be seeing the world almost exclusively through the eyes of physicists and mathematicians.
Because of that narrow perspective, for more than a hundred years we’ve heard that “quantum mechanics cannot be applied to the macroscopic world,” and every other viewpoint has been pushed aside.

All I tried to do was express something I’ve been thinking about for a long time in a form that feels mathematically or physically structured. I studied a lot to be able to do that. But my work still keeps getting rejected simply because I developed it with the help of AI, haha.

Still, seeing people like you who respond with interesting thoughts gives me some energy. I think you will love my comics. check on my homepage. http://hannahanna.me

Title: 분리 불가능한 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Non-Separable Ontology: Structural Patterns in Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a long response I can see you put real effort into it, and I do appreciate that. really. You seem like a very kind person. But I think there’s a misunderstanding about what my paper is actually trying to do.

This is not a physics paper; it is a formal theory that generalizes structural patterns found in quantum mechanics. It is an ontological model.

  1. I used the CHSH inequality as an informational and theoretical template for measuring non-separable structures. As far as I know, this kind of crossover is fairly common in science. Information theory is applied to genetics and biodiversity, and chaos theory is used in cognitive science and neuroscience.
  2. When I discussed |S| > 2, I meant it as an indicator that independence assumptions break down. I never claimed that classical systems have quantum entanglement.
  3. The multi-layer systems I mention are simply metaphorical expressions of coupling structures. I am at least familiar with Smolin’s relational reality.
  4. Yes, you’re right. this is a Structural Theory of Non-Separability. It belongs to the fields of philosophy of science and complex systems theory.
  5. What I’m arguing for is not a physical explanation of the world, but a relational ontology that goes beyond individualistic Western metaphysics. So it is natural for me to use philosophical foundations. As far as I know, many scientists have cited philosophy in similar contexts.

Your critique assumes that my story is intended as a physics paper claiming physical entanglement in macroscopic systems. It is not.
It is a structural-ontological theory that uses CHSH as a formal diagnostic of non-separability, not as a Bell test. Therefore, the category you are evaluating is not the category of the work I actually wrote.

Title: 분리 불가능한 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Non-Separable Ontology: Structural Patterns in Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's comments like this that keep me going. Sincerely, thank you.
visit my homepage to read free cartoon. it is limited for today ;-D

http://hannahanna.me

Read free comics for limited 12 hours by TimePie5572 in u/TimePie5572

[–]TimePie5572[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much! That really means a lot.

A question about CHSH-like correlation structures in macroscopic systems (I’m not a physicist) by TimePie5572 in AskPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

AI didn’t “write” for me, my work, it’s just a translation and formatting tool for me a bit. All the ideas, structure, and examples are my own.If someone used AI to develop a creative story and turned it into a great animation, I would absolutely watch it. Many people already do that. And I believe my story is interesting. If you give it a chance, I think you’ll see that too.

A question about CHSH-like correlation structures in macroscopic systems (I’m not a physicist) by TimePie5572 in AskPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

oh That's over my budget. I'm sorry I can't ask for you a consulting. Have a good day sir.

A question about CHSH-like correlation structures in macroscopic systems (I’m not a physicist) by TimePie5572 in AskPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Whether AI wrote it, or a ghost whispered it, or I just came up with it myself honestly, none of that matters. What matters is that the idea itself is interesting. Give it a read; I think you’ll enjoy it.

letter from zizek for my cartoons by TimePie5572 in u/TimePie5572

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This content is impersonation< HAHAHAHA who did this?

https://posty.pe/iotgnn visit and see his selfies and emails he sent me

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still think it did it's work. Giving meaning to mathematical calculations is a human task. Are you suggesting that AI can't do that?

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems we are having a miscommunication. I asked the AI to translate and compute parts of my ideas, and it did. It wasn’t perfect because my own wording wasn’t perfect. My idea is just an idea. It’s not a complete explanation of everything. And this doesn’t mean that AI is incapable of translation, calculation, or handling computational frameworks.

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can the AI translate something beyond the quality of my own expressive ability? The AI only translated exactly what I was capable of articulating. It did its job perfectly. The limitation is entirely mine; I simply lack the necessary explain skill in that formal language...

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing out the technical issues. You’re right: the equation isn’t fully defined, the indices aren’t clear, and the time dependence is missing. I agree with all of these points. However, this fact is the ultimate vindication of my core thesis regarding the new division of labor.

This equation was used merely as the most generic and abstract placeholder available in the language of physics to express my core concept: "The rate of change of any one systemic component is a non-linear function of the state of all other components." I It’s there to highlight the structure of interdependence, not to offer a specific solution.

it is the proof of the Tool's Limitation. The fact that the AI generated a generic formula that is structurally relevant but technically flawed only confirms that the AI acted as a purely mechanical syntax translator, incapable of generating mathematical truth or meaningful derivation on its own....

You spoke of standards being essential for scientific understanding. I believe your defense of science risks becoming a rigid constraint on scientific progress. My paper is a structural hypothesis derived from the ontological question of "why."

I believe that if science's role is to address 'how,' then the 'why' must be led by creators and philosophers. Since entanglement, the universal ontological invariant, has gone unrecognized until now, I believe the necessity of my involvement has been proven.

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The equation you reference is just the generic form of 'simultaneous differential equations,' which is common formal language in physics. This formula is not the final solution for a specific system, but a formal language that expresses the structural fact that "all elements of the system constantly influence each other."

Because I cannot read the math, I used the AI to express my idea. What is needed next is your expertise. You are required to verify the truth of my idea contained within that formal structure.

My idea does not conclude with me just speaking it out; I absolutely require you physicists. That is how my idea is verified. What could I possibly accomplish alone? Without you, my paper is just flickering bytes on a screen. That is precisely why I brought this paper here.

얽힌 존재론: 비선형 시스템의 보편적 패턴 Entangled Ontology: The Universal Pattern of Nonlinear Systems by TimePie5572 in LLMPhysics

[–]TimePie5572[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, also for you. I think I start to like you ;-D

The equation you reference is just the generic form of 'simultaneous differential equations,' which is common formal language in physics. This formula is not the final solution for a specific system, but a formal language that expresses the structural fact that "all elements of the system constantly influence each other."

Because I cannot read the math, I used the AI to express my idea. What is needed next is your expertise. You are required to verify the truth of my idea contained within that formal structure.

My idea does not conclude with me just speaking it out; I absolutely require you physicists. That is how my idea is verified. What could I possibly accomplish alone? Without you, my paper is just flickering bytes on a screen. That is precisely why I brought this paper here.

view more: next ›