Is the AI correct? Is superdeterminism only conjecture and unfalsifiable? Might it be impossible to prove even if true?
Is the AI correct? Is superdeterminism only conjecture and unfalsifiable? Might it be impossible to prove even if true?
Is the AI correct? Is superdeterminism only conjecture and unfalsifiable? Might it be impossible to prove even if true?
Yes but if you're listening to a LLM you're too stupid to understand why.
If it’s correct and cited its sources, then what’s the problem?
Anon, did you check to make sure those sources exist? It is capable of making up sources (and/or misusing sources that do not actually support the claims made).
A couple of them I’m familiar with such as scientific American and big think.
No I mean, the individual articles/papers. I don't mean this as a 'gotcha' or anything, they may be real, it's just that I've seen LLMs in general (and Bing in particular) make this sort of error before.
Anon is right, these AIs frequently cite sources that don't exist, or don't actually agree with its claims. You have to check them.
its wrong but theres a catch.
the only way to prove super determinism is to use a larger universe to analyze ours.
Wouldn’t that fall under, “may require overcoming some fundamental and practical challenges that are beyond our current capabilities and understanding”?
I did not check them. I thought Bing’s answers were interesting, but I won’t give it too much credence.
no, you're thinking about predictability . that wouldn't prove sd, because sd is about an impossibility to have been otherwise, not about predictability. even if you predict everything right, deniers of sd can still say "yeah but it could have been different, and you have no proof against that".
sd should still be provable.
we can show a given algorithm must give a specific result if we know enough about its parameters.
superdeterminism is unfalsifiable, yes. but so is standard quantum mechanics (sqm), aka copenhagen. you're not aload to whine about superdeterminism being unfalsifiable whilst dickriding copenhagen. i see it too often.
I thought some aspects at least of standard quantum mechanics had held up to a lot of scrutiny and used to make lots of accurate predictions, which is why it's used even though it doesn't explain gravity?
>some aspects at least of standard quantum mechanics had held up to a lot of scrutiny and used to make lots of accurate predictions
people always say this shit and never specify exactly what it has even stood up to. but really, the main point is that the indeterminism of sqm is no more falsifiable than the determinism of sd. that's why it is wrong to claim sqm is better than sd.
Why is superdeterminsim so much more controversial than sqm?
because loads of people hate determinism. that's literally the only reason.
Superdeterminism is WEF propaganda and easily disproved by the factual experience of free will.
Brains are weird and complex, and the details of conciousness aren't well understood. I'm not certain that the feeling of a personal experience of free will means we actually have free will and it isn't an illsuion created by the future being difficult to predict, new experiences being novel to us, or some other thing we don't know yet.
>the factual experience of free will
Arguing against determinism is always a shitty argument because its enemies are emotionally invested in not being responsible for their own actions.
I just think the idea that the structure of the universe causes it to be inherently deterministic to be an interesting one, especially if it’s the truth. I’m not trying to get out of responsibility for my actions. My behavior will be the same regardless of what science discovers on the subject,
>i experience the ability (or proof of the ability) to have done otherwise
you don't
Really? disprove it, then
anyone who asks an LLM for technical explanations of things should be whacked firmly with sticks.
They are algorithms designed to be fantastic bullshitters. I haven't personally messed with Bing's citations but unless you check everything specifically you should assume it's trying to fool you (it's not, it doesn't have that level of agency, but that's the only psychologically safe way to approach these things)
The part that stood out to me the most was it calling superdeterminism “conjecture”. That seems like a pretty dismissive term to use and I was curious what BOTentists thought about the subject.
Everything is conjecture until you can prove it mathematically.
lmao, you may as well ask questions to a magic 8 ball.
Is anything it said wrong?
If a parrot quoted Tacitus to you, and nothing it said was wrong, it'd still be a fricking parrot.