Hi,


The problem with a discussion like this is that there are a lot of assumptions that have to be assessed. We would have to do a formal statement list to be able to really hash this out.

One way to do this would be to create such a list or lists and present them to an automated reasoning program. If we start to get silly results we know we left something out.


There is a much simpler view though and that is that there are two schools of thought in this thread.

#1. Current science is completely settled in that some things can never change given a trillion years or more.

#2. Current science is not completely settled in that some things no matter how absurd sounding as they are now, can eventually change.


#1 is the block head viewpoint because they refuse to accept anything they cant prove RIGHT NOW.

#2 is the more liberal view in that there could be untold improvements in the understanding of our universe or even other universes.


There is a more definitive explanation for these two views though and that is that it depends on your interpretation of quantum physics. I wont hold anybody to that though because i am a #2 person.


Another way of looking at it is that there is NO WAY in 'heck' that i can be wrong, or anyone else that is a #2 person because if something changes drastically i am certainly not wrong, but if nothing else ever changes for all eternity i am also not wrong. So i cant lose

#1 people can lose if anything changes. Sorry guys


So make your choice carefully

No of course science is not "completely settled". Far from it. Even so all serious postulates should at the very least be reasonably plausible and preferably based on some direct, VERIFIABLE observation.

If I were for example to speculate about some fuel that could one day provide enough energy to propel a spacecraft far into the future, well that isn't based on any evidence. You would after all have to convert something like a star's worth of mass to energy. So maybe it is possible, maybe not. At that point it's pretty much an exercise in science fantasy.

 

Wow, a false dichotomy and straw man in a single post. Are there other logical fallacies that you would like to demonstrate your mastery of?

Your entire reply is just a mocking that contains no useful information especially since you know i wont change my mind.
You just cant seem to deal with opinions that are not your own.

Also, if you read the entire thread you would see that the discussion is pretty much polarized. That's unless you prefer to define a #1.5 instead of just #1 and #2. It's up to you, but there are the extremes cant get around that.

 

No of course science is not "completely settled". Far from it. Even so all serious postulates should at the very least be reasonably plausible and preferably based on some direct, VERIFIABLE observation.

If I were for example to speculate about some fuel that could one day provide enough energy to propel a spacecraft far into the future, well that isn't based on any evidence. You would after all have to convert something like a star's worth of mass to energy. So maybe it is possible, maybe not. At that point it's pretty much an exercise in science fantasy.

Hi,

Yes you make a good point no doubt about that, but there are extreme examples and more practical examples.
In other words, there are some examples that seem more plausible and others that seem less plausible.
I would bring up fusion but (ha ha) they still havent gotten there yet However, many believe it is possible.

 

Your entire reply is just a mocking that contains no useful information especially since you know i wont change my mind.
You just cant seem to deal with opinions that are not your own.

Also, if you read the entire thread you would see that the discussion is pretty much polarized. That's unless you prefer to define a #1.5 instead of just #1 and #2. It's up to you, but there are the extremes cant get around that.

And the post I was replying to was nothing more than a ridiculous caricature of those who disagree with you. You are arguing against a mythical opponent. That is what is meant by a strawman.

 

#2 It would be cool if unicorns existed, just think about all the fun. It's also been said, on the Internet, that unicorn tears cure cancer.
#1 There is no evidence that unicorns exist and tons of evidence they don't. Let's talk about other cool things that do exist.
#2 But if we dig into this dung heap for a trillion years we might find one.
#1 There is no evidence that unicorns exist and tons of evidence they don't. Let's talk about other cool things that do exist.
#2 But if we dig into this dung heap for a trillion years we might find one.

 

And the post I was replying to was nothing more than a ridiculous caricature of those who disagree with you. You are arguing against a mythical opponent. That is what is meant by a strawman.

Hello again,

Well apparently i did something right so you want your crow now or later?

One of the leading physicists of our time Leonard Susskind agrees with just about everything i brought up here including the unsettled state of entanglement and the possibility of a worm hole (workaround i talked about) connecting the two.

In his words, he believes there is going to be another quantum revolution that can come to grips with this in ways we can not conceive of yet. Now where did we hear that before? Yes right here in this thread. He goes on to add that we should be able to achieve this when we know more about the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity, and probably not before that. His friend emailed him with a short email:
ER=EPR
and that allowed him to understand how one quantum particle can go into a black hole while one speeds away those being entangled. The connection is a worm hole. A worm hole means that they are not really far apart they have that very special avenue in which to communicate. Wait did i say communicate? Yeah i guess i did. But it does not have to go FTL because the theory would tell us they are not far apart. So it's not FTL per se, but it is a workaround that i suggested earlier in this thread.

Just a quick background on the world renowned physicist, he was one of the original thinkers that came up with the holographic principle, and a lot of other ground breaking ideas in physics.

There are so many possibilities out there that could be true. If you say they are mere fantasy, then you havent been paying very good attention to modern physics. Modern physicists have open minds about what can and can not happen unlike the #1 people i talked about.

I guess you are right though, there could be People 1.5 because some may be partially for unseen unimaginable new developments in physics and partly for settled physics. Do we have some part way between that and one of the extremes? Yeah i guess we could. That would mean People 1.6, People 1.7, People 1.8, etc.
If i understand you right you are People 1.0 and i am pretty much People 2.0 and that's why we have to agree to disagree, because we all have our reasons.

PM me your address, i will ship you that crow, free of charge

 

You really don’t get it, do you? My posts are about your mis-characterization of what people on this thread are saying.

Please show me where someone (other than you) said this:

#1. Current science is completely settled in that some things can never change given a trillion years or more.

It certainly wasn’t me, in fact I noted one glaring example where current observations are at odds with current theory (post #167)

So how does your appeal to authority (another logical fallacy, by the way, congrats on number 3) refute anything I have said?

 

You really don’t get it, do you? My posts are about your mis-characterization of what people on this thread are saying.

Please show me where someone (other than you) said this:


It certainly wasn’t me, in fact I noted one glaring example where current observations are at odds with current theory (post #167)

So how does your appeal to authority (another logical fallacy, by the way, congrats on number 3) refute anything I have said?

Hi,

#1 is the group of people that believe that some theories in science can never change because they would not "OBEY" some "LAW". They dont seem to realize that the universe does not make laws, we do.
If you are not one of those that's great. But you said that you would agree with "Einstein" rather than me, so i took it to mean that you didnt agree that for example quantum entanglement could possibly be used for communication some day.
But if it wasnt that, then what did you disagree with?

How does appeal to someone who knows more about this than either one of us right now a logical fallacy? Explain.

 

How does appeal to someone who knows more about this than either one of us right now a logical fallacy? Explain.

Because there is nothing I have said that you have refuted with a statement from the authority. All you say that he agrees with you. Show me where he says you can entangle two clocks and they will thereafter be synchronized for all time for multiple observers.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...MIrr7jxdOo-QIV0siUCR2HZA49EAAYASAAEgK70PD_BwE

 

I don't think things as complicated as clocks have been entangled yet. Large crystals, yes, but not complex machines. Therefore it is not yet know whether the first part, the entanglement, would even be possible.

 

Because there is nothing I have said that you have refuted with a statement from the authority. All you say that he agrees with you. Show me where he says you can entangle two clocks and they will thereafter be synchronized for all time for multiple observers.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...MIrr7jxdOo-QIV0siUCR2HZA49EAAYASAAEgK70PD_BwE

Hello again,

I dont get it, do you not read my entire post before commenting? I explicitly stated that you can "forget about the clocks". You disagreed with that long ago and i sort of conceded and told you to not worry about that and just refer to the two particles.

Im not sure what your point is anymore you seem to be continuing to discuss an issue long ago resolved.

I think the main point here is can there be quantum information exchange faster than light or some workaround that works in a similar manner, and that means that physics is not really settled at any point in time. That's what the Professor agreed with, that physics is not settled and in fact it is most likely going to change dramatically in the future. For a good example, the holographic principle. Who would have ever thought that something that absurd could be possible. His idea on quantum entanglement is that they may be connected by a worm hole which would make them able to share states without any or much time passing. He tries to resolve the issues not question simple examples that were never meant to be perfect analogies, if there even is such a thing.

I agree that we have a way to go on this with quantum physics being inherently different than classical physics so the two may not mix very well, but we still have a ways to go yet and more and more is being done each year.

If you agree with this that's great i dont think you have anything to complain about
If you disagree that's cool too, you are certainly entitled to your own personal views.
If you would like to state your views that would be great although i am not trying to force you to do that either.

 

I have stated multiple times what I am disputing and you keeping returning to arguing against something I have never said. and would not agree with.

One final time: I am disputing your ridiculous claim that the people in this thread who disagree with you believe physics is complete and will never change.

Stop putting words in my mouth, and then telling me how wring I am.

 

I have stated multiple times what I am disputing and you keeping returning to arguing against something I have never said. and would not agree with.

One final time: I am disputing your ridiculous claim that the people in this thread who disagree with you believe physics is complete and will never change.

Stop putting words in my mouth, and then telling me how wring I am.

Oh ok no problem Sorry if i offended you in any way.
Also please keep in mind that i talk on other sites, in text on cell phone, and voice on phone, so i end up running a little thin sometimes.

Ok so i guess i cant say that there are any types of people classifications even though i suggested a reasonable linearization previously that could possibly cover every person on the face of this earth. So i guess you dont like any kind of demographics. That's perfectly fine with me.
So you are one of those people that dont like demographics which is demographic type #1 on a scale from #1 to #2 (ok just kidding there).

On a scale of 1 to 10 how well did i address your problem? (1 being not very well and 10 being very well)
Please be honest, thanks.

 

Hello again,

Recently i read that researchers at Columbia University used artificial intelligence to find new solution variables for old classical mechanics problems like a dual pendulum. Normally these would be modeled using a set of state variables that anyone that does this kind of analysis would recognize in a second and understand what each and every state variable represented in the physical system.
Using AI they claim that by letting the system look for it's own ways of doing the analysis, it came up with a set of variables that has nothing to do with what we normally think of when we do this kind of thing. They say that the variables they came up with they cant understand because it makes no sense physically, yet the new system comes up with the right results.

This they claim shows that they found a completely new physics. That would illustrate how physics is so unsettled yet, but i'd still like to see some verification. Could it be that their new variables are just a mix of other state variables that we would understand without too much trouble. If not, it could mean an entire new understanding of the Universe(s).

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10755.pdf

All physical laws are described as relationships between state variables that give a complete and non-redundant description of the relevant system dynamics. However, despite the prevalence of computing power and AI, the process of identifying the hidden state variables themselves has resisted automation. Most data-driven methods for modeling physical phenomena still assume that observed data streams already correspond to relevant state variables. A key challenge is to identify the possible sets of state variables from scratch, given only high-dimensional observational data. Here we propose a new principle for determining how many state variables an observed system is likely to have, and what these variables might be, directly from video streams. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach using video recordings of a variety of physical dynamical systems, ranging from elastic double pendulums to fire flames. Without any prior knowledge of the underlying physics, our algorithm discovers the intrinsic dimension of the observed dynamics and identifies candidate sets of state variables. We suggest that this approach could help catalyze the understanding, prediction and control of increasingly complex systems.

It's not new physics per the articles I read (be careful of POP-SCI sources) about it. It's just alternative expressions (NN pattern matching) for the classic physics formulaic/mathematic/algorithmic descriptions. This is how 'AI' works on images.

 

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5604n7md

 

 

Barron's article warns, it may be coming but don't invest in the first IPOs
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/393c8e2...computing-could.html?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10755.pdf

It's not new physics per the articles I read (be careful of POP-SCI sources) about it. It's just alternative expressions (NN pattern matching) for the classic physics formulaic/mathematic/algorithmic descriptions. This is how 'AI' works on images.

The Diffusion Model used in current image generators is vert different, I think, than what you are describing. If encodes the images in the training set by adding noise in successive stages until it can characterize the image as a compact string that doesn't have a direct correlation to the original. To produce an image it starts with Gaussian noise and does a series of "denoising filters" making successive attempts at recognizing the prompted image in the noise, eventually settling on the output and converting it back into a pixel representation.

There are no individual pieces of images stored anywhere.

 

The Diffusion Model used in current image generators is vert different, I think, than what you are describing. If encodes the images in the training set by adding noise in successive stages until it can characterize the image as a compact string that doesn't have a direct correlation to the original. To produce an image it starts with Gaussian noise and does a series of "denoising filters" making successive attempts at recognizing the prompted image in the noise, eventually settling on the output and converting it back into a pixel representation.

There are no individual pieces of images stored anywhere.

No, there are no individual pieces of images stored anywhere but the training data derived from individual pieces of images is as a high matrix with many degrees of freedom (high dimensional space). There is no direct correlation to X image but it is reversible because it's a random noise source mixed with signals that are regular in some fashion.

https://ai.googleblog.com/2021/07/high-fidelity-image-generation-using.html

Alternatively, diffusion models, originally proposed in 2015, have seen a recent revival in interest due to their training stability and their promising sample quality results on image and audio generation. Thus, they offer potentially favorable trade-offs compared to other types of deep generative models. Diffusion models work by corrupting the training data by progressively adding Gaussian noise, slowly wiping out details in the data until it becomes pure noise, and then training a neural network to reverse this corruption process. Running this reversed corruption process synthesizes data from pure noise by gradually denoising it until a clean sample is produced. This synthesis procedure can be interpreted as an optimization algorithm that follows the gradient of the data density to produce likely samples.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05600

To tackle these two challenges, we propose to perturb the data with random Gaussian noise of various magnitudes. Adding random noise ensures the resulting distribution does not collapse to a low dimensional manifold. Large noise levels will produce samples in low density regions of the original (unperturbed) data distribution, thus improving score estimation. Crucially, we train a single score network conditioned on the noise level and estimate the scores at all noise magnitudes. We then propose an annealed version of Langevin dynamics, where we initially use scores corresponding to the highest noise level, and gradually anneal down the noise level until it is small enough to be indistinguishable from the original data distribution. Our sampling strategy is inspired by simulated annealing [30, 37] which heuristically improves optimization for multimodal landscapes.

MOD NOTE: Removed the many links in the quoted material.