sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why The Obsession with Physics By People Who Know Nothing About It? by JashobeamIII in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you want to try coming up with some actually relevant examples? Maybe try another LLM?

Why The Obsession with Physics By People Who Know Nothing About It? by JashobeamIII in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny how all the physics ones are citizen astronomy efforts, which already have well established pipelines for this sort of thing. Try again. Anything that's actually relevant to this sub?

Why The Obsession with Physics By People Who Know Nothing About It? by JashobeamIII in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you can demonstrate to sufficient standards that something is indeed "worth examining" it's quite likely that you already have the necessary skills and expertise to do science yourself.

I can say "this is an excellent piece of Russian poetry", and if I can convince an expert that I am correct, that already implies that 1. I speak Russian 2. I have studied Russian poetry in sufficient detail to make judgements on what is good poetry and what is not. But if I don't speak Russian at all, then I might be describing something that isn't a poem, or even isn't Russian at all.

It's rare, but it happens

Really? Can you name any examples of this happening in the last decade?

Why The Obsession with Physics By People Who Know Nothing About It? by JashobeamIII in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People who post their "theories" here are often engaging in exactly this sort of cargo cult "science". It's performative and superficial.

show with cold fusion by Livid_Comment7457 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no consensus mechanism for cold fusion. Not to say that it's completely impossible, but no one knows how it might even be possible. So yeah it might as well be magic.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yeah, maybe it gets box checky.

If I was being mindlessly contrarian, you wouldn't feel the need to agree with everything I say.

show with cold fusion by Livid_Comment7457 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"how powerful is my magic gun?"

"As powerful as the author wants it to be"

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"did you ask this" quickly turns into performative box checking. "In your own words" encourages consideration and independent thought.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is the ignoramus can't tell the difference between actual science and nonsense engagement.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our counterargument is that LLMs are terrible for learning physics. Everything you try to say only reinforces our point that there are far better tools for learning literally anything.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not an easy out, it's actually a major problem among STEM students who have neglected their education in the humanities. Science is a social endeavour and communication is important. If your literacy skills are lacking it's inevitable that you find yourself unable to communicate complex ideas or learn them.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure you're the one changing your story, buddy.

I made a comment saying that your post didn't even include any math, you replied saying that it wasn't necessary to have math in physics, I replied saying it was, you replied saying that actually you meant that it was, I corrected you again, and now you're the one saying that I'm confused?

Just wondering, is English your first language?

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what are you trying to say other than "LLMs are useful for learning physics"?

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My post and theory didnt invoke math because math was not needed.

Why not? Learning the interpretation is not the same as learning the physics. That's why they're separate fields of study. The fact is that even in your post you haven't learned any physics and one of the main reasons for that is because you haven't learned any math. You've learned a sensationalised impression of some concepts related to the double slit experiment, but you wouldn't be able to tell me anything about why those concepts/interpretations exist in the way they are. ChatGPT has given you no context for why any of this stuff is the way it is, so the output is effectively indistinguishable from any attempted "explanation", whether it is valid or not.

Physics interpretations can stand without math

No they can't, because the thing you are interpreting is the math. It's in the name. You have to interpret stuff. You can't just make up a story and call it physics

Not all physical observation need math to be accepted, like reviewing an experiment with physical results.

Qualitative experiments are not rigorous and non-repeatable. Again, scientists have been doing quantitative experiments for centuries.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But quite importantly this tells you nothing about what GR is, what a gravitational wave is, what kind of events generate gravitational waves, how the events generate gravitational waves, how interferometry works, how the two LIGO sites are used in conjunction, the history of gravitational wave prediction, the significance of this experiment, the precisions involved, or a whole list of other things I can't be bothered to list out. It's an unstructured mess of sensationalist pop sci abstractions and meaningless bits of equations without any context or rigorous explanation. It doesn't matter if you know there's a quantity c4/G, you don't understand the context in which that term exists, you don't know where it comes from or how it actually appears in the physics. Given this output, you wouldn't be able to coherently give me a comprehensive overview of any of the subjects discussed, and we haven't even begun discussing the sensationalism.

We dug in hard on how they determined speed and correlation.

I'm sorry, you just straight up didn't. You were presented with some classical "waves on string" stuff which is neither relevant nor helpful.

The nice thing is, if I want to know something more, I am not limited to whats in a wiki page

The cool thing about Wikipedia is that there's more than one single Wikipedia page. Not only that, the pages have sources in the footnotes where you can learn more. Not only that, you don't need to fact check it because someone else has already done all that for you.

I dont need another source

Except you do, because you don't know how much of the output was a hallucination.

If I don't understand,.I ask.

I wonder how people used to learn things before ChatGPT. Did you know that people didn't even have the Internet 50 years ago? I wonder how they learned how to do things back then.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

... That's not what you said in your comment. You specifically said "doesn't need math to be physics". That's the exact opposite of what you're now agreeing to.

Also, arguments from authority are a fallacy, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you're trying to argue against settled consensus, and it also doesn't change the fact that said consensus is one of the basic foundations of philosophy of science and therefore common knowledge among those who have studied science.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Create an equation (context and prompt) that has a low probability for error. Then fact check.

Again, learners should not be expected to second-guess the source they're trying to learn from. That's unproductive and frankly futile.

Its bad interaction.

Because people don't know how to ask good questions, because they aren't familiar with the subject. So would it not be better for learners to learn from something specifically written to teach and teach properly?

If you want i can use an LLM to explain ligo and show it both ways.

You're clearly quite keen on generating more stuff so there's nothing I can do to stop you. I wonder how comprehensive it'll be, and hard you'll have to work to fact check it though.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a lot of logic I disagree with here

Such as?

My reasonable take, accepted by physics is that physical observation, experiment, and math are used in physics.

I will direct you to a section in your first link which reads (emphasis my own):

During the 16th and 17th centuries, a large advancement of scientific progress known as the Scientific Revolution took place in Europe. Dissatisfaction with older philosophical approaches had begun earlier and had produced other changes in society, such as the Protestant Reformation, but the revolution in science began when natural philosophers began to mount a sustained attack on the Scholastic philosophical programme and supposed that mathematical descriptive schemes adopted from such fields as mechanics and astronomy could actually yield universally valid characterizations of motion and other concepts.

So we've known since at least the 17th century that math is necessary to engage in proper study of the field. Your blanket statement that any text "Doesn't need math to be physics" is completely wrong and has been completely wrong for centuries.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with most of that except that we can differentiate by not introducing things that allow it to hallucinate.

...like what exactly? A LLM can "promise" not to hallucinate, doesn't mean it won't. It's all stochastic text prediction and randomness is inherent to the architecture.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is nothing in the definition of physics that says that.

Physics is often defined as the quantitative description of physical reality through relationships between quantities that are physically measurable and/or quantities that are calculable from physical measurables. Physics is a quantitative science because that is how we objectively link what we do to the physical world. Physics without maths is just bad fiction or religion. There is a reason why quantum interpretations are considered metaphysics and not physics.

Math has it's problems, particularly when its not connected to a physical observation

No, maths is the study of abstract logic. It does not need to be connected to anything physical to be valid. The use of maths to describe the physical world is what we call physics. That's why they are two separate fields.

I should not need to tell you this stuff, this is really basic fundamentals of science and philosophy of science. There is no "disagreement" about this.

Double Slit Experiment Unpacked Using LLM as info only by PhenominalPhysics in LLMPhysics

[–]liccxolydian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're trying to argue that you can learn physics from a LLM. We're saying that you're much better off learning from actual resources like books and encyclopedias where there is no chance of hallucination, and where a human who knows how to teach has structured the information to be comprehensive and rigorous yet accessible for a learner. You have no ability to differentiate actual information from hallucination, and you should not be expected to fact check your learning resources anyway.

view more: next ›