Jump to content

Lan Todak

Senior Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lan Todak

  1. Hi everyone... Why Don't all of you talk about algorithm ( a set of instructions that allows a machine to be responsive). I mean why do AI look Like zombies to us although they are cooperative and responsive. What are the missing parts that weve overlooked. I think by discussing about this, allowing us to understand how unique free will is and why humans look Alive. 

    I think it has something to do with yes-no process. You know what I mean.

  2. I have something to share to all of you. As the title says, i will talk about earth's gravity growing with a proof. Don't worry, the proof I will provide can be tested in a lab just like you usually do, a very simple lab test.

    // I have asked admin to repost the topic. I hope this is ok.

  3. I have something to share to all of you. As the title says, i will talk about earth's gravity growing with a proof but I need at least 1000 likes for precaution. Don't worry, the proof I will provide can be tested in a lab just like you usually do, a very simple lab test.

  4. On 6/2/2022 at 11:19 PM, Phi for All said:

    What kind of charity are you talking about? Do you want us to say, hey, good for you for having an idea, don't worry about the parts that aren't supported by science, just keep having those great thoughts! Is that the charity you want?

    A publisher needs to profit somewhere, so you either have to write something that people will pay the publisher for, or you have to pay the publisher yourself. The best way to get support from a publisher of scientific publications is to write some good science. They love that. 

    Iirc, you don't support your ideas very well. Any science publisher is going to want to see the evidence we've been asking you for. What would you tell them?

     

    On 6/2/2022 at 11:50 PM, swansont said:

    Most serious science that is published does not generate income for the author(s). On the contrary, it costs money to get published in scientific journals.

    Popular science writing can generate some modest income, however. But for good writing that lets non-scientific people understand scientific things.

    So if you just want to get your ideas out there, it's as Bufofrog says - publish it here. But keep in mind that you will have a critical audience. If you don't want that, start a blog somewhere and turn off comments.

    My phone screen is broken. I will try to do that soon. Anyway i Aman activist.

     

  5. 😃If I can't get charity from this site, can I get support from publisher? Is nyone here working on publishing company? I would like to publish my idea. If anyone could help me I will start a new topic right away 😃

    Hi everyone...

  6. 18 hours ago, QuantumStrangeness said:

    why is general relativity not compatible with quantum mechanics?. can they ever be compatible?.

    Most of the time, when we understand one system or nature, we can create a simple and smooth math from it. But for an unknown, you might get wrong anticipation. 

    For example, a machine produces an output using collatz conjecture. You ask some experts determine the system and create a math from it. What will you expect the results? 

     

    They will create different maths. Oddly every math will work just fine on certain level but not on others. 

     

    This is how we deal with gravity.

  7. 10 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

    I'm making the inquiry what is existence? Because I do think there is a very very subtle difference between the purpose/intent for which we were made (ie. God made us) and why we exist at all (which includes why anything including God exists at all).

    That's Interesting inquiry but I believe in aliens or programmers over god or gods. I don't really care if they're powerful or not. 

    Regarding your inquiry, you shouldn't take it lightly against gods in which you rely heavily on intuitions solely. Otherwise, it's a faith based opinion. Anyway, I still find discussing about existence is intriguing.

  8. 3 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

    To all those who do believe in a faith system, I'd like to know, would it bother you if your God was not exactly all powerful?

    I'm asking out of curiosity because on a reddit forum recently I proposed an article that God does indeed have a limitation, however, as far as concerns the creation of humanity we could still regard God (if one believes in it) as the most powerful being in our immediate orbit of existence. So, would it bother anyone if this was the case? Or does your faith hinge on the belief that your God is absolute in all respects?

    The link to the article is below for anyone who wishes to read in full:

    https://medium.com/@thelittleblackbook/what-is-the-limitation-of-the-all-knowing-all-seeing-insert-belief-here-god-6068823c1a7

     

    For those that don't want to read, basically I'm saying that the one limitation of God is that God cannot exist as anything other than God in essence or spirit. Not fully. In other words, existence imposes a condition on each and every thing (including God).

    Do you mean god can only be himself, don't you?

  9. 4 hours ago, studiot said:

    But I could have written those numbers in a different order; the set would still have been the same.

    It has no centre. That is the point.

    It should be noted that it is also a representation if used to illustrate properties of the universe since it only shares some properties with whatever manifold the universe actually is.

    The edges are 1 and 2 with 1.5 as the centre. Your set can't represent our universe. 😑

  10. 2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Because when A.I. seeks to defend itself, like an ant would, I'll consider the consciousness of the internet, like I do of an ant.

    I can catch up with your phrases. What this "A.I. seeks to defend itself" means with reference to this this phrase "consciousness of the internet"

  11. 3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Much like an ant is? Or more like an ant-hill is?

    An ant is aware of the various smell's its colony produces, but that doesn't translate to the colony being conscious. 

    You may as well say the universe is conscious because Gaia theory is plausible...

    A.I can do more job. Why we need to make ant as example?

    3 hours ago, joigus said:

    I meant deeply ingrained as a necessary condition, but not sufficient. I agree with you that the complexity part is needed. I've somehow implied it when I said,

    and elsewhere.

    I think I'm less of a reductionist than you picture me, @Eise.

    The very same way that microscopic variables give rise to pressure, temperature, etc., there must be microscopic variables that give rise to this --undeniably puzzling-- ongoing projection that we call consciousness. Linear momentum, charge, energy, and the like; to me; don't even start to suggest an analogue.

    The spinor mapping --that a space-time point is represented twice in an internal-variable space--, or the holographic principle, or some similar principle that strongly suggests some fundamental mirroring, bi-valued representation, etc, seem to me to be more likely candidates of this deeper level I'm talking about.

    x-posted with @Lan Todak

    If microscopic variables give rise to conscious mind, can we get A.I abilities to adapt to ransom environment as how conscious mind works?

  12. 35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Much like an ant is? Or more like an ant-hill is?

    Ant can adept environments, establish new perceptions and communicate with new languages as long as its senses work. A.I can't do that even its sensors work flawlessly. A.I needs to be reprogrammed in oder to adept.

  13. When we remove all the programs and experiences an A.I once had and that A.I recreates those it has lost, that means that A.I is aware or conscious.

    //I mean all the codes in all classes including the main class. See if that A.I could rewrite those codes again.

    *just for fun. ;). I am bored rite now.

  14. 8 hours ago, MigL said:

    It's kind of like you don't realize there is no paradox, and further, it has nothing to do with length contraction in inertial frames.

    The distance between muons and the detector is call space and this distance got contracted. That explains why muons survived. It does not matter which frame you choose, in physics, space is nothing. you will need to rework space-time curvature to compensate this poorly defined conception(empty space) because they do not match. On top of that, it's necessary to rework time dilation too as its independence of direction will not fix in.

  15. 9 hours ago, studiot said:

    So you are claiming that all those relativity calculations about spaceships travelling through 'empty space' are incorrect ?

    They are correct, but we are discussing about whether we can apply relativity to empty space or not. AFAIK, we treat empty space as nothingness. We map space by constructing coordinate system so we can make measurements but we do it differently when applying length contraction. We apply directly to space which contradicts with our main concepts of space. By doing that we treat space as a thing. 

    8 hours ago, MigL said:

    When applying length contraction, we use relative speed between the 'moving' object and the one doing the measuring ( of speed and length, from a 'rest' frame ).
    If there is no other object in the universe, what do you measure speed relative to ???

    I don't get what u mean. It's kind of like you don't follow the topic about twins paradox currently being discussed.

  16. 5 hours ago, MigL said:

    How can you tell if length is contracted in 'empty' space ?
    Is the concept even valid for an object in an otherwise empty universe ?

    When applying length contraction, we apply it to particles of that object but space between them must remain intact (if space mapping is just coordinate system).

    2 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

    Or the measurement problem..🙂

    Yup... absolutely... 😉

  17. 14 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

    Any form of energy-momentum will be a source of curvature, not just mass. For example, if you have an electromagnetic field in an otherwise empty region of space, then this will have a gravitational effect too. 

    Also, curvature has nothing to do with displacement, it’s purely a geometric phenomenon - it’s about geodesic deviation, i.e. the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel.

    Do you mean that we can generate gravitational effect by using EM instead of mass?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.