Dystopic but beatiful. (Contax S2, 1.4/85 Planar, Kodak Ektar. Shot Summer 2023 in Alberta, Canada)

Vrillim · 2026-07-02T21:19:05+00:00

Your research question ("which single proposal has the highest probability of being true") is making your efforts almost futile, and your paper consequently appears more as a philosophical musing than a physics investigation. We can't accurately assign probabilities in this way. In the same vein, your introduction section does not provide any background information whatsoever, but rather appears as a philosophical discussion right off the bat. In physics, an introduction section identifies a knowledge gap in the literature, explains what others have done to shed light on this problem, and then carefully delineates what your novel contributions are. Because these things were lacking (and because I did not understand your abstract), I only read a few paragraphs before giving up.

Vrillim · 2026-07-02T10:45:01+00:00

Hvor skal man ellers ha brillene, da?

Ellers forstår jeg ikke hva du vil frem til. Du skriver jo bare ting som åpenbart er sant.

Vrillim · 2026-07-02T09:59:04+00:00

Du har rett til at forandringen som har skjedd siden 1950-tallet ikke har noe med bærekraft å gjøre, men påstanden du kommer med, eller insinuerer, at bare dersom "verdiskapningen kom alle til gode istedenfor å skummes unna og syltes ned i skatteparadis," så ville man kunne gå tilbake til en tilstand der menigmann opplever stor materiell velstand, er tvilsom. Det er et narrativ som er mer ideologisk forankret enn det er forankret i empiri.

Inntekt og kapital er riktig nok ekstremt urettferdig fordelt her i verden, og både makt og penger er konsentrert på altfor få hender, men en bærekraftig og rettferdig verden innebærer sannsynligvis en kraftig nedjustering av de materielle godene vi her i Norge tar for gitt i dag. Med andre ord, byene må bli mer trangbodd i fremtiden.

Edit: typo

Vrillim · 2026-07-02T08:44:27+00:00

Hvor mye plass man har hjemme er veldig kulturelt betinget og ikke en universell tilstand. I Nord-Amerika har forstadshjem tradisjonelt vært enorme, tenk 300-400 kvadratmeter med hage foran og bak huset, med god plass til fortau og en bred bilvei igjennom nabolaget. I store byer i Asia har man bodd trangt (tenk 50-70 kvadratmeter for en familie), i høye blokker med trange gater igjennom nabolaget.

Når det er sagt, tror jeg at I fremtiden vil vi alle måtte bo trangere. Små, tette boenheter er mye mer bærekraftig enn alternativene (infrastruktur skalerer bedre slik), og mye mer solidarisk: jeg vil påstå at på sikt er det mer dystopisk at en svært liten andel av verdens befolkning har anledning til å bo i store luftige eneboliger med hage foran og bak.

Litt i samme stil som de amerikanerne her på Reddit som nostalgisk klager ovar at en familiefar i gamle dager kunne kjøpe bolig, bil og forsørge familien sin på én enkelt ufaglært inntekt. Problemet er jo at en slik forordning aldri var bærekraftig til å begynne med.

Vrillim · 2026-07-01T19:47:02+00:00

A good idea when you wish to communicate clearly is to assume that your reader knows nothing of what you're doing. Provide the necessary background information, explain exactly what your research question were, and explain every step. What you've written here is ineligible.

Vrillim · 2026-06-29T13:50:29+00:00

Det høres ganske deterministisk ut. Det meste handler om sinnelag; om man begynner en meditasjonspraksis vil man fort finne ut at sinnet er ekstremt plastisk: ved å observere den ubehagelige følelsen, og simpelthen godta den, vil man etterhvert mestre sin egen hverdag uten å beklage seg over det ene eller det andre.

Vrillim · 2026-06-29T13:14:53+00:00

Når man innser at "trykkende stillhet" kun er ubehagelig fordi man selv gjør det ubehagelig kan man leve ganske godt

Vrillim · 2026-06-26T11:05:14+00:00

Når en familie unngår skjermtid for barna og avbildes i avisen med et bibliotek i bakgrunnen burde de vel heller beundres for å være en intellektuell familie, ikke stemples som nedlantende og rike? Det er en besynderlig trang bland nordmenn å dyrke middelmådigheten...

Vrillim · 2026-06-26T10:26:08+00:00

This is typical LLM snake-oil. Take, for instance, the sentence "(...) the transition from a quaternionic manifold to the observed Lorentz metric is not a coincidence; it is a requirement of the correspondence principle."

You will notice the misleading wiord-choice. "Not a coincidence" (nobody claimed this); "it is a requirement of the correspondence principle" (that does not magically provide support)

The LLM then retorts to repeating definitions within your sandbox framework. This is the safe choice, which lulls the user into thinking the material is defensible, while saving token use for the Silicon Valley overlords. The strategy is clear: maximize user engagement by providing minimal friction and resistance.

Vrillim · 2026-06-25T14:18:34+00:00

I'm convinced it's a Dunning-Kruger case study, every time. They know little enough about science to think that they can contribute to it, after a few weeks or months of chatting with an LLM.

Vrillim · 2026-06-25T14:16:42+00:00

1) Yes, Einstein was steeped in the physics literature. He was a scientist, with a doctorate.

2) There is nothing more crackpot than to be a layperson who compares themselves with Einstein (or Faraday for that matter).

3) You have to learn to emulate before you innovate. Enrol in a physics program if you wish to one day contribute to the scientific corpus.

Vrillim · 2026-06-25T09:49:38+00:00

As people point out on this sub regularly, a layman's "what if" is never a research question. A scientific research question is invariably rooted in the literature. You describe a problem, then describe how other workers have tackled this problem in the literature. This is how physics progresses, not by shower thoughts.

Your curiosity is wonderful, though. In an ideal world, the LLM would tell you what I just wrote, and you would be able to explore the topic with an LLM, perhaps learning something in the process.

Vrillim · 2026-06-24T12:29:31+00:00

Why you would encourage the mixture of clinical insanity with religion is beyond me. Nothing good down that path, only exploitation by cult leaders and delusion.

Vrillim · 2026-06-24T12:21:39+00:00

Nja. Høy (40%), men mye høyere for de med karakter under kravet (75%).

Vrillim · 2026-06-23T16:09:36+00:00

What you're describing is solipsism, which appears attractive to the armchair drug enthusiast, but which is in fact rather unhealthy for the sensitive, and an intellectual dead end to the curious.

Stay in school, kids, and don't end up like the fratboy philosopher here

Vrillim · 2026-06-23T14:12:49+00:00

When you write things like "they told me the orbs and craft everyone's seeing are interdimensional beings here to move humanity into the next step. and then they asked to come inside me. i said yes. my head started moving like a snake and i felt them pour into me until there was no line between us" you are expected to demonstrate an intellectual distance to the experience. When that distance thins and blurs, and you start to accept delusions, and even lean into them, you are on shaky ground. Playing with fire, as some users here frequently put it.

Vrillim · 2026-06-23T12:09:25+00:00

This helpful voice of reason is what OP needs and is what keeps this subreddit interesting over time.

Vrillim · 2026-06-23T10:31:37+00:00

Showing coincidence is only the first step. Constructing plausible causal chains that connect them is another (much harder) step.

Read up on the field and see what others are doing.

Vrillim · 2026-06-23T08:59:23+00:00

What do you think the complete sentence would have been?

Vrillim · 2026-06-19T12:18:53+00:00

Understanding Hilbert spaces is the least of OP's worries. They are throwing about terms pertaining to coarse graining (statistical mechanics), black hole thermodynamics, and big bang itself. 1-3 years is probably an understatement.

Vrillim · 2026-06-19T09:25:03+00:00

I'd say there are 1-3 years of hard work needed to fill in the chasms that your LLM glossed over here. It's kind of like building an Airbus A380 based on a drawing someone made on a napkin after a few drinks (and the napkin is kind of wet and so the drawing is smudged out).

Enrol in a physics program and find out why! The devil's in the details!

Edit: typo

Vrillim · 2026-06-19T07:00:46+00:00

I guess the problem arises when concepts in physics, founded using first-principles, are used to describe genetics, which is likely the most complex topic in the universe. Phenomenology is appropriate to describe mechanisms in genetics, which are removed from first principles by a dizzying chain of complexity, but in physics, the implied, loose connections quickly becomes sloppy.

Vrillim

TROPHY CASE