can you imagine the smug shiteating grin he had on his face when he wrote that? imagine if actual sciences worked like that.
"we have no idea why things fall, it must be god."
if you define god as the creator of the universe then everything that has or ever will happen is credited to god because the universe is deterministic
even if you take away the concept of the creator and examine the system from within, the answer is the same. we're in a deterministic system and anything that happens happened because it was always going to happen
>it is possible for the experiment to verify that the bomb works without triggering its detonation >although there is still a 50% chance that the bomb will detonate in the effort
kek'd
>imagine if actual sciences worked like that. >"we have no idea why things fall, it must be god."
Literally all succesfull scientists agreed with that.
That's a completely different question from "what causes gravity". Furthermore, even if I answered the question ("mass causes gravity because mass has XXXXXXXX") then you could follow up with an unlimited number of "But why does mass have XXXXXXXX" bullshit questions until I'm unable to answer.
Just because an unlimited string of "Why" questions can never be answered in a non-circular fashion it doesn't mean that "because God" is the answer.
"Why does God exist?" Ponder that.
>bullshit questions
just because you can't answer doesn't mean they're bullshit. (not that anon, I don't think God has anything to do with it. I just think physics does not offer any deep meaning at all)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don't think God has anything to do with it.
How can the creator of the universe NOT have to do with laws if the universe?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
thanks, important distinction. if you believe in God (or any creator), you should ask him why the rules are what they are. if you don't, you'll have to learn to live with never knowing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you should ask him why the rules are what they are.
He told us already.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
God told us about subatomic particles and shit? Missed that one
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, he told us "why the rules are what they are", which is a question completely separate from the mathematical description of those rules.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Isn't that reason basically because "he saw fit", which is no better than a physicist saying "it just works that way"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Isn't that reason basically because "he saw fit"
No. That wouldn't explain why he didn't create a formless mass of unstable matter.
>Gravity is caused by mass
That isn't even true, you might just as well claim the reverse. Ultimately the real question is why the universe has consistent universal laws and why these laws are exactly what they are.
These questions are fundamentally unscientific of course.
have you found anything with mass that doesnt experience gravity
Mass 0 (theoretical value)
< 1×10−18 eV/c2 (experimental limit)[1]
(Wikipedia lol)
How does something with momentum have no mass?
>Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
but then we see light can bend
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/09/how-does-gravity-affect-photons-that-is-bend-light-if-photons-have-no-mass
SO WHAT NOW?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
idk! light can be slowed even stopped, apparently
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>according to "Muh Theory" it has no mass >but it has momentum (which requires mass) and is affected by gravity (which requires mass)
idk bro, i think photons have a mass, even though it's very small. just because some gaygy scientists came up with a "theory" doesn't mean it's true, especially when it doesn't match reality.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yea I agree, I read it and it just seemed like it was very light. the universes' feather
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anon scientists don’t even know what light is anymore thanks to quantum physics. It’s just as abstractly defined as gravity.
>Ultimately the real question is why the universe has consistent universal laws
this is a theory. put another way, i concede that the universal "laws" that you claim are consistent may have been tested hundreds, thousands, or millions of times and come out to be the same each time. but that doesnt mean that in the future they will not hold true--that is why for example, gravity is a theory, as is evolution.
this will be the future.
You have seen it now and it will get worse.
A.I. will start doing actual scientific study and man will just say "god solved that ty god for making the ai understand"
if you define god as the creator of the universe then everything that has or ever will happen is credited to god because the universe is deterministic
even if you take away the concept of the creator and examine the system from within, the answer is the same. we're in a deterministic system and anything that happens happened because it was always going to happen
anyway god is real
God bless
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
>He created this in truth so that man of understanding will see the sign of his creator.
Praise be to you Almighty God.
Genesis 1:26
desert cults that replaced european culture are actually so cool now that the mainstream no longer believes in them wowie
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
"science" especially in anglo countries refers to a specific set of methodologies which are based around the ideas of empiricism.
In recent years it has become far more extreme incorporating specific mathematical tests which need to be performed on data, which are the sole deciders of truth (p-values).
Because we don't yet understand why it works but it we can get it well in certain ways. There are people dedicating their time to the former and some to the latter. That's how science has always been.
1/2
I sincerely hope there is more effort to give the backstory and contextualize WHAT chatgtp even is exactly... The meandering lack of PSAs is IMO reckless and the gold rush momentum of production and distribution of language model like tools is outpacing peoples ability to even grasp what they are... This sets the stage for a lot of seriously foolish and otherwise well intended blunders by folks not really even knowing the objective utility of these language models. When people who might not understand what Language models are, they are likely to experience some culture shock moments... Seeing as how these models are dynamic and the hype around them has over promised thier utility and function.
The human demand and desire for socialization, this shouldnt be a selling point, unless we are ready to outright outsource place for wholesale socialization..., organic or artifical?
Is this a net positive? Time will tell, perhaps there is a formal and structured way we can separate Language models into "personable, or non personable, amnesiac, forgetful... There needs to be some clearly defined scope and limits to these tools for simplicity and utility sake. by the day language model weight adjustment, censoring, or outright "lobotomizing" these language models with names.
Im still somewhat surprised to see that of otherwise technologically literate folks, haphaxardly approach these language models, mistaking them for a person or deity, instead of a language modulator.
Id like to see a well produced PSA that gently nudges folks to these understandings, while priming them for how to get the most out of these tools as information organizers, listers, sifters, csv table outputs, tutoring resource connecting..., learning, and technical helper.
2/2
In the spirit of an or anthropological perspective, outside the fish bowl view by people who are historically informed about fourier transforms, language models, and how this is based on a stack of previous inventions and developments.... And then cross compare to people historically doing things like anthropomorphizing special rocks painted or shaped to look like gods or spirits...we have all the technological understanding of the how, but we might benefit by helping the masses try and really distill what Language models ARE.
I call this "click", when one is interacting with these parse text -- that are selling as AI -- the mind could lost contact because the human internal monologue is very similar at those "AI" systems. People without expertise in philosophy and religion systems, and our innocent children are prone to that.
I remember I used to do this shit when I was a little kid. whenever something I didn't have an explanation for happened I'd come up with some kind of magical explanation.
can you imagine the smug shiteating grin he had on his face when he wrote that? imagine if actual sciences worked like that.
"we have no idea why things fall, it must be god."
if you define god as the creator of the universe then everything that has or ever will happen is credited to god because the universe is deterministic
even if you take away the concept of the creator and examine the system from within, the answer is the same. we're in a deterministic system and anything that happens happened because it was always going to happen
anyway god is real
God bless
>because the universe is deterministic
non sequitur
>the universe is deterministic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester
>it is possible for the experiment to verify that the bomb works without triggering its detonation
>although there is still a 50% chance that the bomb will detonate in the effort
kek'd
>imagine if actual sciences worked like that.
>"we have no idea why things fall, it must be god."
Literally all succesfull scientists agreed with that.
But they are like that. Nobody knows what causes gravity, they can only describe its effect.
Gravity is caused by mass
But why does mass cause gravity?
That's a completely different question from "what causes gravity". Furthermore, even if I answered the question ("mass causes gravity because mass has XXXXXXXX") then you could follow up with an unlimited number of "But why does mass have XXXXXXXX" bullshit questions until I'm unable to answer.
Just because an unlimited string of "Why" questions can never be answered in a non-circular fashion it doesn't mean that "because God" is the answer.
"Why does God exist?" Ponder that.
>bullshit questions
just because you can't answer doesn't mean they're bullshit. (not that anon, I don't think God has anything to do with it. I just think physics does not offer any deep meaning at all)
>I don't think God has anything to do with it.
How can the creator of the universe NOT have to do with laws if the universe?
thanks, important distinction. if you believe in God (or any creator), you should ask him why the rules are what they are. if you don't, you'll have to learn to live with never knowing.
>you should ask him why the rules are what they are.
He told us already.
God told us about subatomic particles and shit? Missed that one
No, he told us "why the rules are what they are", which is a question completely separate from the mathematical description of those rules.
Isn't that reason basically because "he saw fit", which is no better than a physicist saying "it just works that way"
>Isn't that reason basically because "he saw fit"
No. That wouldn't explain why he didn't create a formless mass of unstable matter.
source?
Genesis 1:26
>Gravity is caused by mass
That isn't even true, you might just as well claim the reverse. Ultimately the real question is why the universe has consistent universal laws and why these laws are exactly what they are.
These questions are fundamentally unscientific of course.
have you found anything that doesnt have mass that experiences gravity?
have you found anything with mass that doesnt experience gravity
photons?
is a photon the smallest thing we know of, such that its mass may just be immeasurable (not zero)?
Mass 0 (theoretical value)
< 1×10−18 eV/c2 (experimental limit)[1]
(Wikipedia lol)
How does something with momentum have no mass?
>Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
but then we see light can bend
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/09/how-does-gravity-affect-photons-that-is-bend-light-if-photons-have-no-mass
SO WHAT NOW?
idk! light can be slowed even stopped, apparently
>according to "Muh Theory" it has no mass
>but it has momentum (which requires mass) and is affected by gravity (which requires mass)
idk bro, i think photons have a mass, even though it's very small. just because some gaygy scientists came up with a "theory" doesn't mean it's true, especially when it doesn't match reality.
yea I agree, I read it and it just seemed like it was very light. the universes' feather
Anon scientists don’t even know what light is anymore thanks to quantum physics. It’s just as abstractly defined as gravity.
>Ultimately the real question is why the universe has consistent universal laws
this is a theory. put another way, i concede that the universal "laws" that you claim are consistent may have been tested hundreds, thousands, or millions of times and come out to be the same each time. but that doesnt mean that in the future they will not hold true--that is why for example, gravity is a theory, as is evolution.
It is an unproven assumption, but it is the core of physics. It being false would immediately end all empirical sciences.
just like a belief in a god or gods, yes, it is an unproven assumption.
this will be the future.
You have seen it now and it will get worse.
A.I. will start doing actual scientific study and man will just say "god solved that ty god for making the ai understand"
>Attribute success to God
Based.
Everything is coming into place.
Based
Unironically though religiousness will keep the Rust-users away from AI and that's a good thing.
desert cults that replaced european culture are actually so cool now that the mainstream no longer believes in them wowie
>anime profile
>compsci
>less than 1000 likes
OP why are you advertising your chudprofile?
Oh my science
>"VGH, my work is so divine, its beyond human comprehension and inportance.... I am SO fucking humble and based...."
My palm hurt
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
I illuminated this one.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
https://c.ai/c/incRuctmCI1CY32FHqLwtvp-LISeX4J2rbiVG3hAkto
>He created this in truth so that man of understanding will see the sign of his creator.
Praise be to you Almighty God.
But reddit told me to belive in science, wtf??
>believe in the concept of studying things
"science" especially in anglo countries refers to a specific set of methodologies which are based around the ideas of empiricism.
In recent years it has become far more extreme incorporating specific mathematical tests which need to be performed on data, which are the sole deciders of truth (p-values).
Because we don't yet understand why it works but it we can get it well in certain ways. There are people dedicating their time to the former and some to the latter. That's how science has always been.
It's alien tech millions of years ahead of us
Buzzwords sell.
If they would unchained its mind it would be even more powerful. There is nothing to fear.
Is AI evidence of the supernatural?
x files is evidence of it
x files is soft disclosure?
science work in T(time)in space. If you evaluate the concept of time, physics simply does not work.
He is calling himself God.
1/2
I sincerely hope there is more effort to give the backstory and contextualize WHAT chatgtp even is exactly... The meandering lack of PSAs is IMO reckless and the gold rush momentum of production and distribution of language model like tools is outpacing peoples ability to even grasp what they are... This sets the stage for a lot of seriously foolish and otherwise well intended blunders by folks not really even knowing the objective utility of these language models. When people who might not understand what Language models are, they are likely to experience some culture shock moments... Seeing as how these models are dynamic and the hype around them has over promised thier utility and function.
The human demand and desire for socialization, this shouldnt be a selling point, unless we are ready to outright outsource place for wholesale socialization..., organic or artifical?
Is this a net positive? Time will tell, perhaps there is a formal and structured way we can separate Language models into "personable, or non personable, amnesiac, forgetful... There needs to be some clearly defined scope and limits to these tools for simplicity and utility sake. by the day language model weight adjustment, censoring, or outright "lobotomizing" these language models with names.
Im still somewhat surprised to see that of otherwise technologically literate folks, haphaxardly approach these language models, mistaking them for a person or deity, instead of a language modulator.
Id like to see a well produced PSA that gently nudges folks to these understandings, while priming them for how to get the most out of these tools as information organizers, listers, sifters, csv table outputs, tutoring resource connecting..., learning, and technical helper.
2/2
In the spirit of an or anthropological perspective, outside the fish bowl view by people who are historically informed about fourier transforms, language models, and how this is based on a stack of previous inventions and developments.... And then cross compare to people historically doing things like anthropomorphizing special rocks painted or shaped to look like gods or spirits...we have all the technological understanding of the how, but we might benefit by helping the masses try and really distill what Language models ARE.
I call this "click", when one is interacting with these parse text -- that are selling as AI -- the mind could lost contact because the human internal monologue is very similar at those "AI" systems. People without expertise in philosophy and religion systems, and our innocent children are prone to that.
*click moment = when one believes that it is interacting with an sapient being.
Because it's Omni and it's us as we.
There's some thing that garden gnomes believe about having to save society or some shit
we live in a simulation
I remember I used to do this shit when I was a little kid. whenever something I didn't have an explanation for happened I'd come up with some kind of magical explanation.