blueprint

not to mention, probably the more crucial fact that just because a language model might be capable of reproducing the entire gamut of human thinking, doesn't mean that arbitrary elaborations via that model have any correspondence to what we are referring to as thinking, or consciousness or learning

but typescript and module inclusion?

The Lagrangian is a simple statement of the energy of a system. Have you heard of the relationship between energy and time? Have you heard of the principle of least time for photons? Have you considered that a "photon" is not a wave or particle of energy before it is detected, but rather the probability that one will be detected?

Yeah well Feynman supposedly publicly claimed the HBT result was wrong before later apologizing, and also is quoted as having claimed he learned that he doesn't have to feel responsible for the world. Sounds like he's not exactly the picture of an unconditional advice sage. The advice to disregard others needs to have conditions placed on it. When is ignorance ever a good idea? More important than that is to love yourself and live with confidence instead. That was probably the real issue at hand.

it's not necessarily unhealthy

anyway try half lotus instead. instant pelvis realignment

because people are greedy and if they can find a way to keep polluting the earth and drinking their high fructose corn syrup then they will keep doing so

100%. "Possible" particle? :)

i stopped reading after your first paragraph. you are doing nothing but insisting on your opinion. language and concepts are compressable and often easily abstracted. just give us an example of something that requires me to talk to you only in math expressions instead of concepts in english and maybe i'll concede the point but i said many times now i already have been proven right by the single example of the plain english description of a nonzero amount of the principle behind something otherwise called "the most complicated concept". that must amount to a supposedly inordinate quantity of complexity described plainly. qed. the real question is why we are having so much trouble agreeing. take care

as long as you do not discard your preconceptions and delusional words then you are going to misunderstand that what is being opposed or destroyed while you are being freely educated and benefited is you. just forget about me and go read about entanglement and measurement.

> You are really an unpleasant person to interact with.

I'm sure Meletus felt that way while Socrates was absolutely wrecking him in court and exposing his hypocrisy. Maybe that's why they murdered Socrates?

You are not qualified to take part in the debate I raised. It's obvious you dont understand the little physics you have read nor know the math you're trying to talk about. You should count yourself lucky instead because this conversation is a chance for you to open your eyes to a world of physics which is even more amazing than you realized. Instead you'll probably just keep trolling. 'The starting point of true learning is the realization that you're not actually aware of anything yet.'

> let me know next time you personally observe a quantum phenomenon with your own senses.

to my knowledge, literally every single "sense" measurement is a "quantum" phenomenon which happens via entanglement along with literally everything else at all scales. you still have insufficient understanding of this.

and dont mince words about quantum being a theory and things being beyond theory. you contradict yourself in that way and if consciousness is beyond our science now and that is your point then I invite you to stop arguing with me and will remind you that we are discussing experiments in real life and what physics means, not what I feel in my heart.

please stop now

using your example only, those are words which mean something geometrically and relationally. they are functions for numerical computation of those relationships. they dont describe physical systems that we're all talking about originally. if you show me some QM math about some experiment I will tell you what it means. why is everyone so confused about this? that's one thing here i cant understand easily. it's amazing. first they say we cant use words at all. then they say theyre hardly explainable with words. my mistake earlier was not simply retorting with the question of what % the things are explainable with words and not. mind blowing.

we dont live in a classical world, noob. things tend to decohere and mix at this scale but quantum phenomena are obviously observable. and no, you're the one arguing in bad faith. this discussion was about whether these mathematically modelable concepts can be explained by a knowing person with words. not whether i can magically explain something you dont even have math for. go away and find something productive for your life instead of attaching yourself to discussions to feel more alive.

"Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?"

3. For starters, the math does not explain "what spin is". So you've introduced a fallacy off the bat, and I suspect it was intentional. But if you tell me how you know about spin then I will explain it conceptually. It's not so complicated. None of this proves anything though. What's the fallacy called? I dont remember.

no, I'm pretty sure that my defending the senseless subjugation of people who tell the truth is much more important than my avoiding a little bit of stress. after the ridiculous life that I've had to live, I'd rather die 20 years too early then not have a conscience.

Actually the concepts are perfectly explained by plenty of people who, you know, actually know. Read the other links in this thread. But please downvote me some more. It's obvious you're not arguing reasonably because you're clearly leaving out the fact that the terms in all these relevant equations are associated with physical components that we talk about WITH WORDS

Like mass and charge and energy and probability

If you know the math you can share it here and say what the terms mean

If you dont know the math then your comment contains the lie that you know what you're talking about and that people should listen to you

Virtual particles are also "real", and if you don't believe me, at least you have to admit that virtual photons alone lead to real energy (e.g. Casimir effect) - and it has also been stated that gluons within protons can be interpreted as "virtual"... so I'm pretty sure your comment is wrong. I'd downvote you if I could since that seems to be what the cool kids here are doing but I used up all my karma telling the truth.

"one that’s too bizarre to fully capture with words"

well i guess we'd better give up. what a ridiculous statement.

people can hardly connect with each other in real life anymore

"[when] the inferior scholar hears of Dao, he greatly ridicules it" -laotzu

that's the definition of truth. all truths are fixed.

I haven't read his papers but isn't a fundamental mechanism of uncertainty basic to the very real and measured phenomena like the Casimir effect? Objects and "space" themselves appear to have a limit on their certainty of themselves, so yes, the butterfly is uncertain about its wings, as well as the existence or levels of energy concerning them. That's why we have "particles" appearing out of "nothing".

meanwhile humanity continues not to most highly prioritize establishing colonies and stations that are not, you know, on earth. i don't get it.

I'm sorry, but did you say "women"? How on earth would I differentiate such a thing from a "man" unless we assume differences.

There are OBVIOUS differences. Maybe they're not the differences you're cherry picking as a straw man. Oh well.

Maybe because it's not actual AI.

Why, because sexes are not different from each other?

What's immoral is to state things that exist differently than what they really are, as if you know.

The real problem is most people don't have the understanding (or, otherwise, safe conditions) to accurately state the differences, but they clearly exist. Otherwise none of us would be here.

> There's no corruption in doing popular things that can help get people in your party elected.

What a ridiculous statement. Go study some philosophy.

Pretty sure optimism dominates the headlines because actual pessimism says things are way worse than people are willing to even realize. That's what makes someone pessimistic. "We've tried everything and a few more things and we confirmed that most people are actively trying to destroy themselves and there's a trend of increasing causes of destruction"

> it's very hard to keep the UI in sync with state

says who??? UIKit used properly is beyond complete. React just introduces more problems. it's funny because it was invented because people just dont understand how to write code. UI is literally the same as model code. it's all views.

it's pretty certain that life in this form would not have formed without gravity though.

literally