exchemist

My son read Ancient History and Archaeology at St. Andrew's. I read his dissertation, on the trading and manufacture of Egyptian faïence in the Eastern Mediterranean before the Bronze Age Collapse. (Quite interesting for a chemist, actually. I may have posted about it previously.) Believe me, historians know a lot more about the ancient world than just battles.😉

Well, one obvious issue is that a great deal of history is not about “winning”. Winning applies to wars and to some degree economic competition, but there is vastly more to history than those things. So it’s something of a glib cliché really.

You continue to miss the point. Merely looking for patterns in numerical data is NOT numerology. Statisticians do this all the time. Numerology is assigning mystical, occult or otherwise unscientifically based explanations to whatever patterns you perceive in these numbers. Nobody “rules out patterns we cannot see”, as you put it. Apparent correlations in data are a signpost for further investigation, to see if there is some mechanism responsible. But what science will not do is imagine explanations for perceived patterns without reproducible evidence.

How can a survey be numerology? A survey obtains information about the subjects surveyed. This may be qualitative or quantitative. If quantitative, the results may be subjected to statistical analysis. That isn't numerology. Attempting to determine the psychology of individuals by measuring their heads is an old pseudoscience from 2 centuries ago, known as phrenology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology That isn't numerology either.

Then Utah is a damned silly place to build the thing.

Seeing as the AI companies make billions - and forecast they will make billions more from AI investments - I should think they should be required to make their facilities environmentally neutral and not a net drain on public utilities. If that makes them look harder at their return on investment calculation, that’s fine too.

Time. Lactate stiffness will wear off after 2-3 days, whereas a muscle tear will take a couple of weeks or more to heal. But they also feel different. Stiffness feels like what you get when you have influenza or something, which you are aware of every time you move the affected muscle, but it is not really painful. A tear feels like a distinct pain whenever you put a load on the affected muscle. There may also be swelling. Similarly with a tendon tear, though for the latter you might do well to see a doctor, as it may need strapping up to avoid loading it while it heals.

How long is a piece of string? Seriously, the answer obviously depends on the degree of overstress, ranging from a muscle or ligament tear requiring surgery to a minor ligament or muscular strain that heals itself over days or weeks. (Ligaments and tendons heal far more slowly than muscles, as they don't have a blood supply.) But muscular overexertion can also include simple stiffness, resulting from lactate accumulation in muscles that, not being trained up to that level of exercise, don't have the circulation to oxygenate the muscles aerobically. This stiffness is what anyone starting an exercise programme will feel in the first days and weeks, until the muscles and cardiovascular system respond by enabling a better blood supply. (I recall this vividly from my own rowing days🙂. In rowing training one spoke of aerobic and anaerobic training regimes, the latter generating lactate which the body has to oxidise and remove after the exercise is over.)

Why does water for cooling have to be a problem? Surely any system can run with closed loop cooling, provided you build adequate radiators? And in Utah why can’t they build their own solar farm to power the thing? I cam’t see why they should be allowed to be parasites on the infrastructure built for the citizens.

Yes I think @pzkpfw makes a relevant point. Looking for patterns in numerical data is not in itself numerology. Numerology consists in ascribing a non-scientific cause to any patterns that may be perceived. So it is not science, by definition. If you merely identify what seems to you a pattern, without ascribing a cause, you leave it open to others to determine if the pattern is indeed really there, if it is significant and if so to propose causes.

Gibberish.

This seems on the face of it to be a silly question. Numerology is quite obviously not science.

Why, then, did you say, on Sunday at 0825, "OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk. Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous." ? Are you just wasting our time, or have you some kind of short-term memory problem?

I don’t think anyone has said “well executed”. But it certainly is being hyped like crazy by its providers, which is one reason it is so much talked about. And I am reading more and more scepticism, at least about LLMs, in the media. In business it appears corporations feel the need to claim they are introducing AI, because of FOMO, but almost none of them can yet point to tangible benefits. A lot of the US stock market boom is apparently due to the promises of AI, but there are many voices that suspect a bubble, due for a correction. That is what I am reading in the Financial Times, at any rate. I wonder if LLMs, the main “retail” application of AI, as it were, are getting too much attention and distracting from AI’s more significant achievements in other fields. In much of the popular talk about AI, it seems to be treated as if LLMs and AI are one and the same thing.

You may be right. I think those specialising in developing scientific theory would generally be described as theoreticians.

“Some theorists”? Anyone apart from nutters?

What are you talking about? These are particle colliders for science experiments, not bombs.

Interesting piece today in the FT magazine by Tim Harford. He relays an anecdote about encountering a fellow runner on his way to the start of the London marathon in Greenwich. This other guy had used Chat GPT to advise him how to get to the start. He'd been told to use the Elizabeth Line to go to Liverpool St and thence to Greenwich. But there is no train from Liverpool St to Greenwich. The point of the article was why this guy had elected to use Chat GPT rather than Google Maps, which would have given him the correct information. The reason is that Chat GPT wrapped up the wrong advice in a nice, chatty package in perfect English, complete with a rationale for avoiding the Circle Line as it would be busy, and so forth. So this guy was suckered by the slick presentation and the human-seeming style of communication into trusting it, when it was actually talking crap.

Rather an informative series on bee-keeping. Here is one I have watched:

More waffly evasion. You owe us answers to a number of specific questions. I'm not a mathematician either but I can read what a formula says. If you post a mathematical formula you need to be able to explain what it is and how it is to be used. It is idiotic to claim you have defined a mathematical operator, yet be unable to say how one would use it, i.e. what it operates on.

So, just more waffly bullshit instead of answering the questions raised. You really are wasting our time, aren't you?

If your "h", which is just a number increasing with the square of time, is an "operator" , what does it operate upon? Give an example of how to use it.

Lt. Pigeon would be proud.

Don't make up nonsense maths then. It makes you look at best a fool or at worst a charlatan. I'm as happy as anyone to be supportive of people who can articulate an idea sufficiently clearly that readers can understand it. But at the moment you are nowhere close to meeting that standard. So the best service I can do you is to point that out, so that you can get your act together and learn to communicate well enough to be taken seriously.

Yes indeed, "whether gibberish or not". And this, I'm sorry to say, is gibberish. It is certainly not novel physics, nor does it contain any identifiable "mind leading" postulate. It is just a jumble of words. I've tried to give you a chance to clarify what you are saying, recognising English is not your first language (at least, I fervently hope that it is not!), but I have had to give up. It is useless for you to waffle pompously about "ontology" if you cannot express an idea clearly. It is also inexcusable to post a mathematical formula without being able to define the quantities it purports to relate to one another. Mathematics is used to describe quantitative relationships between entities that can take mathematical values. Familiar examples would include things like energy, momentum, mass, electric charge, mechanical force, etc. If you are not describing entities of this kind you have no business posting mathematical formulae.