Eise

Yes, but the particles are not. Let's take muons as example (again). Normally they have a half life of about 2 μs. In an particle accelerator they live much longer. That's time dilation. In its own reference frame the muon of course stands still. So its half life is still 2 μs. Now imagine the muon can travel 100 rounds in the accelerator before decaying. So from the reference frame of the muon, it also makes 100 rounds. Now how can this be explained in the reference frame of such a muon?

Occam's razor doesn't say 'make it as simple that wei guo understands it'. Sorry.

Of course not. E.g. if the question is, how many different pairs of horses and basketballs one can form, it is 21 pairs (this is called a 'Cartesian product'). Compare now with e.g. speed. According to you the unit of speed does not make sense: one divides distance through seconds. But I assume you have no problem with that (miles/hour, or meters/second, whatever). Obviously not as you are using the phrase 'meter per second'.

Math is different: it is not just more logic, it is a rigidly logical language. How do you want to make quantitative predictions without math? Example: Eddington's test of special relativity in 1919. According general relativity the bending of light close to the sun is twice as big as a pseudo Newtonian calculation. Without math, it would have been impossible to distinguish between GR and Newton. I am pretty sure, that most physics experiments are quantitatively, no simple yes/no experiments. Another nice example might be Dirac's prediction that an anti-electron should exist. He derived that by pure mathematics, by rewriting the Schrödinger wave equation so that it fitted special relativity: by taking his calculations seriously he predicted the existence of the anti-electron, and got the mathematical proof why spin exists. Only a few years later the positron was discovered. On the surface, one could see the experimental evidence by Anderson as a yes/no experiment. But to identify the positive particle as an anti-electron, one has to make sure that it has the same (but opposite) charge as the electron, and also the exact mass, otherwise it might be just another positively charged particle. You extremely underestimate the function and need of math in physics. It's need is practical: to make quantifiable predictions, to find not yet seen phenomena that logically follow from existing theories (like Dirac's anti-matter prediction). It is not religious at all. What else can you do if you want to understand the phenomena? If there even would be a 'reflection of reality', it comes to us through the phenomena. By assuming the existence of, what you call 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', we are able to encompass more and more phenomena under single theories. Do these underlying artificial-defined things inside 'really exist'? Does the wave function 'really exist'? Do virtual particles 'really exist'? But the math, based on them, correctly predicts the phenomena.

That is possible indeed. But it is not the aim of science to describe nature as it is in itself ('an sich'). Its aim is to describe nature as it reveals itself to us, to our senses and cognitive abilities. Then surely we can introduce 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. Examples might be (being careful here) wave functions, or virtual particles. What is important is that the math using them gives correct predictions. If it turns out that we can't use them, i.e. experiments cannot be explained by using a theory with 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', then the theorists must go back to the drawing board. But in a new theory we might have new 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. No way. You would be like a stamp collector, collecting 'physics facts'. Science is more than that. Physics wants to describe an empirical world: what else than the empirical world could be the arbiter if a theory is correct or not? Of course, a theory must be logically and mathematically sound, but that is not enough. That is old fashioned metaphysics, especially in it rationalist form: that we can explain the world based on thinking alone. First, math is logical through and through. A little mean, one could say math is applied logic on 'mathematical objects' (numbers, geometry, topology, etc etc). Second, between the lines I read that what you mean with 'logic' in fact is "wei guo's capability of understanding".

That may be the reason that experiments are done in physics, no? We take the best theories we have, i.e. that explain the most empirical facts that we know until now, and try to extend them with math to see what other, not-tested results follow. And then we put them to the test. So your 'complete' is a none-existing caricature of what physicists do. That is exaggerated. Sure, there are areas in physics where philosophy might help, when reflection on used concepts and methods becomes necessary. But besides that, experiment is the filter that any mathematical theory applied to physics must pass.

And you are ignored again... Even from the video, it seems pretty clear this a fireball. I have seen one 2 times in my life, pretty impressive. And I fully agree that the quality of the videos is not better then messages of the devil if you play music in the wrong direction... +1 for all your posts here, that were ignored.

The situation is similar to the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Theory now. Both are tested extensively, and no experiment refuted these theories until now. You could call that an 'academic storm in a teacup', because, as far as I can see, it will not have a direct impact on any technology in daily use. However, as said before, some technologies would not work if we would not take relativity in account: GPS would not work, synchrotons would not work (in fact synchrotons were a necessary technology, because cyclotrons do not work anymore when velocities get too high: the classical law of conservation of momentum does not apply anymore, and must be replaced by relativistic momentum. As that is impossible to do based on the mechanism of the cyclotron (i.e. constant frequency of change of polarisation) we needed new concepts). Without taking into account relativity, particle accelerators would not work. Yes, it is weird: do you think that anything in physics (theoretical and practical) would change, if you find errors in the article 'that started it all'? I would suggest you read the first part of Leonard Süsskind's 'Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory', from the 'Theoretical Minimum' series. It is more educational than Einstein's Moving Bodies', and more modern in its language.

It seems to me you have forgotten that all results of special relativity are tested to the bone, and shown to be correct. I provided the link. Here it is again. Eh? There was a huge problem: Poincaré, Lorentz, and probable many other physicists (less famous), were very well aware that the Galilean transformations do not work for the Maxwell equations. That means that classical mechanics and Maxwell are inconsistent. One of them has to change. Based on the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light, classical mechanics must be adapted. Your 'Ansatz' is also a bit weird: as if SR is logically based on Einstein's original article only. Even if there would be errors in it, the further development of SR is not touched by that. There even have been several physicists who think that Einstein's argumentation in 'Moving Bodies' is not quite correct, but the conclusions of the article were not put in doubt by that. So if you can't follow 'Moving Bodies', then try a more modern introduction, and educational better, or easier to read than Einstein's original article.

Right. I don't know if I exactly can say I know more about science history than you, but at least, it greatly interests me. After the Michelson-Morley experiment, there were several ad-hoc explanations of the negative result: it is no accident that length contraction often goes by the name of 'Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction'. Supposing that the aether exhorted some force on objects moving through it, the length contraction 'explained' the null result of the MM experiment. Woldemar Voigt also went into that direction. To Lorentz, it was also very clear, that classical physics and Maxwell's electromagnetism were inconsistent: applying the Galilean principle of relativity, the Maxwell equations do not keep their form. Lorentz was able to derive the correct transformations that left the Maxwell equations intact. Poincaré named them 'Lorentz transformations', and Einstein just took over this name. However, Lorentz still believed in a dynamic influence of the aether as the explanations of his transformations. AFAIK, Poincaré himself was also very aware of this consistency problem, but thought that would be one preferred reference frame, but due to the Lorentz transformation it is indeterminable. @Logicandreason: from this it should be clear, that Einstein was not working on an original problem when he published his 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Even the title was not original, I think Poincaré wrote an article with the same title (but then in French, of course). Einstein succeeded in deriving the Lorentz transformations from only two postulates: the principle of relativity, which is the same as the Galilean, but extended to electromagnetism, or better, all laws of physics; and the invariance of the speed of light. Einstein himself said that the time for SR was ripe those days, and I would say it would soon have been discovered by somebody else. Just a few comments on this thread. (I am not well-versed in mathematics either, so I leave that to our experts). But I would like to point out that SR lies at the root of many working technologies (particle accelerators, GPS (which needs general relativity too); of physics itself (e.g. the magnetic field so to speak rolls out the existence of the electric field seen by moving observers; it explains the colour of gold and the liquidness of mercury), E = mc2 of course also rolls out of SR; and spin and antimatter were predicted by making the Schrödinger equation conform to SR (by Dirac)). And then of course there are an awfully lot of tests thrown at it. Wikipedia has a long list here. So the default position of anybody doubting SR should be that (s)he does not understand it, because the tests and usage of SR speak a clear language. To think that there would be an error in Einstein's original article would not change anything in the modern understanding of SR.

That would be a 'trickle-up' effect. And that may be much more realistic as the 'trickle-down' effect. A strong middle class, makes a strong consumer base. So more employees are needed to produce consumer products.

I guess it is ChatGPT...

Yes, it is a conjecture, of course. As long as we have not succeeded, we cannot be sure. But as TheVat already said, it is important to keep an open mind. We do not know what belongs to the essential properties of neurons and how they must be connected to generate consciousness. And I also think that @Genady is right, that an 'AGI' must have its own means of observing and moving. TheVat already answered it for me: Deep Learning is modeled after how neurons are working. The output that ChatGPT is not generated by rules implemented by humans. From Genady's linked article: If these simplified models of neurons suffice to replicate our mental capabilities, and can lead to consciousness, is an open question. But the output can definitely surprise the programmers. This is not Eliza, or SHRLDU. In these AI-programs, the rules were explicitly programmed. That is why your examples of your python program, thermostats, elevator software, etc simply are a dishonest comparison. Yep, and you are made of chemicals, that you can buy at the Chemist's. I let ChatGPT write a small bash-script for me. It did it in a nearly human way: the first version was wrong, I wrote what was wrong, and it came with a better version, but still not quite correct. In the end, the 5th version did exactly what I wanted. Yesterday I tried it with an elevator, but it did not succeed. So I think I have to call elevator-repair-man...

But your neurons fire like they are always do, "just" in another pattern. That is true. But there is also no evidence that we can't. Now assume that we are able to simulate a complete brain: that means the simulation can also report on what it sees. And then, being able to do everything that a natural brain can do, it can report that it does not like what it sees. And when asked why, it can reveal some of its reasons. But that means it has inner states, or even stronger, is aware of its inner states. Then it becomes difficult to argue that it has no consciousness. And if it cannot give its reasons? Well, then it was not a good simulation, or at least incomplete. Of course it would! I am convinced that if all 'easy problems' are solved, there is no hard problem left. Qualia have no causal powers, so they might just as well none existent. Maybe it helps, if you ponder about why nobody today thinks we need 'elan vital' to explain life anymore. Piles? Nope. It is the structure and kind of processes that run on this structure. But that is probably what you meant. Well, if one drops the word "emergence" just like that, I agree. But if you have a model on how higher level phenomena can be explained by the workings of a lower level, then "emergence" is a sensible description of that.

Multiple drafts model Sure. But this would also be an argument against any physics simulations: most laws of physics are continuous, so 'analog'. Using your argument computer models of physical process would be useless. So why would a digital computer not be able to be precise enough to simulate analog brain processes? Followup with the TheVat's idea that there is no difference between information processing and a simulation of information processing. A small pile of atoms cannot calculate, so computers, made of atoms cannot either (or the other way round: computers can calculate, so every atom can calculate a bit). Protons, neutrons and electrons do not have colour, so nothing built from them can have colour. Etc. Thanks for the clarification. I was reading 'existential' more in the way existentialists use it. And in that sense, you are already showing the first symptoms of 'existential fear': Read Dennett. He is also a strong defender of the idea that we have free will. (No not libertarian free will, not plain (quantum) randomness). And he wrote a chapter in Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking about the 'just-operator' (made it bold in your sentence)

Yes. Build your own cloud chamber. It is not too difficult. Link.

I doubt that, but in this case... I just wanted to apologise to Genady for forgetting about gluons. So this time I was right by being wrong. Maybe I show my stupidity with the next question: are gluons in a nucleon off-shell, i.e. virtual particles? Or is that a different topic?

This also seems to me the most fundamental description of what c is. However, I think there is another description, and it would be great, if people agree, can shed some more light on this: c is the maximum speed of causality. So, no, as Genady already said. Only particles without rest mass, can travel at this speed, or better, can only exist as particles with this speed. Light and gravity are as far as we know the only phenomena that have this speed. (Neutrinos were also suspected to travel at light speed, until other experiments showed that they must have a tiny rest mass.)

Of course not. The light dot on the wall cannot be used to transfer information from one place of the wall to another. Photons are not charged. Photons have infinite lifetime, unless absorbed. 'In theory', yes. But because there are no perfect mirrors, this will never be possible.

I am not aware using the word 'computability'. Obviously you filled that in. If that helps: no, I do not think there will be an algorithm for consciousness. 'Complexity' surely is a much better description, even if it sounds more vaguely. But e.g. Daniel Dennett makes a well argued case in his Consciousness Explained, making it less vague than it sounds. So if your elevator is just executing algorithms, without having these algorithms unwanted side effects, then it is not conscious. Exactly like a neuron, or a small set of neurons. This is what I said: Added bold. Does that say that there were no discussions about this topic? Nope. And panpsychism is not my cup of tea. Should we also adhere to 'panvivism'? Because living organisms exist, should we suppose that all atoms are at least a little bit alive? Maybe you should explain what 'existential' means.

@wtf That is correct. But there must be a natural explanation, and as long we do not have it, the question if some form of AI could turn out to be conscious cannot be answered. There is no reason to think quantum physics plays a fundamental role in consciousness. AFAIK not a single philosopher or cognitive scientist has picked up on Penrose's idea. (We need a theory of quantum gravity to explain consciousness??? Really?) Is a neuron conscious? Two connected neurons? Do neurons understand symbols? Because the complexity of the system is not big enough. Not enough nodes, not enough connections, and what more. I don't know what, and how much of it, or large, will be needed, but my point in my original reaction is: you don't either. You use the right word: 'speculations'. when you know Searle's Chinese Room 'intuition pump', then you also should know it is intensely debated. Obviously you do not believe that there is a natural explanation of consciousness. And I think that is the real reason, that you see no problem with AI, because it will never reach this 'magical consciousness' that we have. Correct me if I am wrong. And just to add: even if AI will never become conscious, that does not mean the people can make good use of this technology. I do not share your optimism:

@wtf: You have to account for the simple fact, that we are also 'machines': wet, biological machines. From a naturalistic view, the meaning of expressions we experience must have a natural explanation. So the logical and/or chemical mechanism of neurons somehow generate meaning and consciousness. I put the 'flipping' in quotes, while neurons are not flip-flops. But all neurons will behave according to laws of nature. As long as we do not understand how these billions of neurons give rise to meaning and consciousness, it is premature to state that a huge system of flip-flops will not be able to experience meaning. Having said that, I think ChatGPT is still far from that point. And I wonder why you ask me to explain myself, but did not react iNow's remarks: So where your descriptions of the workings of ChatGPT might be perfectly correct, you fail to account how meaning and consciousness arise, evolutionary, and individually, in humans.

Doesn't the meaning supervene on the flipping of the bits? In the end, we are just 'flipping' neurons. I think the difference is gradual.

Not at all. It is such an apparatus: (But then much bigger (I think it is a '12 espresso cups' size), and of stainless steel...) So if you do not notice that the water boiled through, i.e. there is no water anymore in the lower compartment, it can be as hot as possible on your stove. As a side node, pressure is not high enough to count as real espresso (no 'crema'), but it is good enough. No; I just buy my bread. If it comes in contact with (hot?) aluminium, well, too bad.