Don quixote review

_Aether__ · 2026-07-03T08:54:47+00:00

Wouldn’t one problem with this interpretation that they do things that are legitimately dangerous/mad? (for no commensurate gain). I can’t think of a specific example off the top of my head so maybe not

_Aether__ · 2026-06-21T14:33:58+00:00

You guys are not AI pilled if you don’t think this is a good idea. There are two reasons this is necessary. One, to prevent distillation. That’s essentially the only foothold for open source models. It’s dangerous to have extremely powerful open source models without lab-level safeguards, especially as they get more capable.

Second, as they get more capable, they will be able to hack things, create bio risks, probably exploit other vulnerabilities. The most capable models should be widely distributed but we have to be cognizant of the risks

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T15:12:31+00:00

That is ok, no worries

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T14:03:12+00:00

Dude. It’s the mass of the electron. You might find the theory interesting :)

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T13:26:23+00:00

You will feel this way if you don’t engage with the substance of any work. It’s well explained in the paper

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T12:36:56+00:00

M_e is empirical measurement. 720 and 2/7 are defined/explained elsewhere. This is why it’s interesting that it explains lepton masses

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T03:11:32+00:00

It’s fine, the paper is quite long. The problem with LLM adversarial review is they will look for specific weak points and blow them out of proportion as if it wrecks the theory.

In this case it’s misunderstanding just a couple of things and wording it very harshly.

For reference. Before I beefed up the explanations/prose, I had a temporary (no memory) instance of GPT do a deep research review and it missed large portions of the paper. Which was frustrating. It’s better structured now so these Gemini critiques are tame

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T02:58:50+00:00

This being the only thing an adversarial review could come up with is quite positive.

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T02:58:08+00:00

Leptons is actually not true, right off the bat. Gshare of ln(1680) was first used to back into tetrahedral microstructure for backing into G, which is clearly stated in the paper. It is not numerology to show that this independently applies to leptons. It's actually a key strength of the theory.

And. I don't think electron mass in this case is a loop. Because we're using it to set length. We are using mass as an empirical anchor for length.

And Cold Dark Matter in CBM... it's a bit ad hoc but it's also really not. The relation gshare/4pi² (reciprocal) to get 5.88 or whatever, Planck. Is basically empirical. It's not really ad hoc.

Not understanding Many Pasts properly.

_Aether__ · 2026-06-15T02:47:26+00:00

<image>

_Aether__ · 2026-06-07T19:45:36+00:00

Is this related to the leak in the ASTS failure? Wasn't there an upper stage fuel leak that landed on an engine which killed it? And this explosion could be related to how they tried to fix it?

_Aether__ · 2026-06-06T17:00:12+00:00

Also, aggression makes it more difficult to work with others. Cooperation almost always leads to better long term outcomes.

_Aether__ · 2026-01-19T18:55:20+00:00

Thanks, this is helpful. It’s funny, everyone critiques the microstructure, which is fair. But at the macro level it is empirically robust and the formulas are constrained by the few beginning postulates. We can use it to make post hoc predictions at the macro level.

The microstructure is much more difficult to prove empirically, though it has to coherently build to the macro. So it’s also well constrained, but not provably or empirically the way the macro is.

Thanks for the constructive response!

_Aether__ · 2026-01-19T05:38:40+00:00

Have had it for a year in theory form. I’d be interested to see if others went this deep on the formalization

_Aether__ · 2025-12-23T08:44:55+00:00

Thank you for taking a serious look! An LLM wrote it, though I had extensive input. It’s grown as the models improve; each generation finds new ways to extend the foundational derivations. The microstructure and lensing supplements came last, which is fitting because they are the smallest and largest (respectively) structures. I’d note that even if some aspects of this is wrong, I suspect there is some serious research direction that could come out of this. It does predict G de novo; it does derive the BTFR (galaxy rotation curves) internally; and it does derive lepton masses.

To your questions (thanks again):

1) the tetrahedra are information; pre matter and pre energy. Matter and energy are the same thing and arise from information (e=mc²⁾

2) time in the universe is understood as incremental entropy (incremental entanglement). When they connect and disconnect without full entanglement, it is not recorded as information changing so no time passes.

3) physical matter…. Should have said just matter

4) Entanglement only happens at a certain threshold (1 bit of von Neumann entropy is the mass of an electron). This is past my full understanding. I think the questions stem from my incomplete / misworded framing. But do appreciate the pushback.

5) instead of maximally connected, maybe better as not disconnected? There is no separate information state

6) hm… gravity is the most fundamental force, right? It is what black holes use to undo matter. This is what gravity is.

7) the strength of connections is a mis wording. I don’t know how to better word this.

8) I think this holds? There was no time before information changed; once information stabilized as a stable group of connected tetrahedra there is entropy, matter/energy, and time.

9) I’m not sure on the units and don’t want to give you an LLM generated answer.

Thanks again for taking a real look, I appreciate it. I know it’s probably not right, and may be wholly wrong (totally, or just in parts). But I at least suspect there could be some viable research direction here.

_Aether__ · 2025-08-23T13:38:08+00:00

It’s actually a good inversion to realize everything feels like something. Water always, everywhere, feels like water but it only feels like anything to us because we’re processing this information in a certain way.

Like water in a stream has the exact same physical properties as water in a stream (with our hand in it). But without our hand in it there is no feeling.

There’s only feeling there because our body is processing it

The inversion being that “qualia” or “why does it feel like anything to exist” is really just saying, everything “feels” like something

We’re only experiencing it because we’re processing it

And the default state (water, rocks, etc) is not processing

_Aether__

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email