Ghideon

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Trying to study science might be daunting or even humbling to some. What you thought or believed was reality or truth all along might be a cherished personal holding suddenly to become unmercifully crushed by some bearded bespectacled college professor in chemistry, biology, calculus, astronomy or physics. 

That seems to reflect a misconception about how scientists view their profession? Let's say someone discovers and confirms physics beyond relativity theories that could potentially allow for faster than light travel*. My guss is that it would trigger curiosity. A parallel from my profession: there are several fundamental theorems putting constraints on computational models and algorithms. Should one or more of these be shown to be invalid* that discovery would allow for many exiting breakthroughs in areas such as cryptography, communication or machine learning. The new possibilities would be exiting, no matter how much I hold on to the belief that the fundamental theorems are never to be proven** wrong.

*) Not likely, just used as an illustration 
**) I use "proof" rather than "evidence" since for instance P vs NP problem is of mathematical nature. 

22 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

You see it is easy to confuse all of these terms, a real digitally-automated user-interface that can do any of the things in my topic title fully utilizes almost every quantum phenomenon in gestalt except maybe electrodeionization (preferring to use photoconductivity in one of the components).

There are several issues with the first sentence. For instance electrodeionization is, as far as I know, a water treatment technology and not a quantum phenomenon.

(Note: If you use downvotes to my posts or other members it does not help you build arguments)

33 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I think that the above affirmation is also not applicable to the cases shown in the following figures (where A1, A2, A3 and A4 are attractors):

Wrong guess. Mathematics does not seem to be your thing, lets look for something else that may suit your style of conversation.

14 hours ago, Max70 said:

🤣

Ok, Lets use emojis.
🍏🌐🎯

🌐🍏❌

On 5/15/2024 at 9:20 PM, ALine said:

artificial intelligence (AGI)

Assumption from another thread that you aim for computational models running on currently available computer hardware;

23 hours ago, ALine said:

I was going to compare how I think to how it thinks.

Any thoughts on how to get the resources needed to develop and run?

Current state of the art machine learning requires quite a lot. Some old numbers from 2020; note that this supercomputer has not resulted in anything resembling AGI as far as I can tell:

Quote

The supercomputer developed for OpenAI is a single system with more than 285,000 CPU cores, 10,000 GPUs and 400 gigabits per second of network connectivity for each GPU server.

Reference https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ai/openai-azure-supercomputer/#:~:text=The supercomputer developed for OpenAI,the top five%2C Microsoft says.

That said, running a simple generative AI based software that generates text can be done on a consumer computer. It has nothing to do with developing intelligence but is useful in some contexts.

20 hours ago, Max70 said:

It's too tiresome and boring.

Ok. For your convenience here is a fe pictures then, illustrating the problem. 

First picture, what established theories and observations agree upon. On a large enough scale everything is moving away from everything else. The balloon analogy mentioned earlier illustrates this in three dimensions. here is a 2d drawing with earth (blue) in the center. dotted line represents the horizon we can't see beyond; the observable universe.

  ¨

Second picture; showing your invalid model with the observable universe very far from some large mass. White circle is the observable universe. 

Third picture let's zoom in on the observable universe, the white circle above:

Since we are far away from the mass everything is virtually unaffected and if there is any movement everything move parallel, there is no expansion. and nothing is moving relative to earth so no movement can be observed. Therefore there are no arrows. This is what your (incorrect) model looks like when drawn using the earth frame of reference. 

Last picture; for your convenience your invalid model superimposed on what we observe. Note the difference. When we look in telescopes we see the movement represented by green dots, not the orange static circles your model suggests.

.

Your question is complex and contains unresolved issues and active research.

On 5/15/2024 at 9:16 PM, ALine said:

What would be a formal definition of intelligence/cognition.

That is ar far as I know an unresolved question; the scientific community does not have a single, universally accepted formal definition of intelligence.

On 5/15/2024 at 9:16 PM, ALine said:

Which that can be expressed formally and mathematically?

Then we have to assume that intelligence* and cognition can be expressed mathematically in a way that is useful. There are attempts in for instance Computational Models of Intelligence and I am not aware of any consensus. You may want to look for work that uses Kolmogorov complexity and Markov blankets (I do not have any sources; tried and failed to locate an article I read some time ago)

On 5/15/2024 at 9:16 PM, ALine said:

One which could be ran according to unique algorithms/computation/mathematical methods.

That assumes that Intelligence can be expressed in a model of computation. As far as I know the debate about whether all aspects of what we consider "intelligence" can be fully captured and replicated by computational systems is not settled. 

Examples to illustrate the complexity: You might be able to mathematically define some type of intelligence that performs well on a typical IQ test**. That does not mean the same mathematical definition is applicable to the intelligence required to :
-construct new IQ tests
-evaluate results of IQ tests
-Ride a bicycle to the facilities providing the IQ test.
-decide if it is appropriate to use an IQ test in a certain context; moral or ethical. 
(These examples are inspired by iNow's answer)

*) Or intelligences, as @iNow correctly points out.
**) such as those used by Mensa or other organisations 

7 hours ago, Max70 said:

Maybe there was such misunderstaning with Ghideon.

No. I pointed at the same thing as @Genady

 (although they formulated their response better)

Just curious: 

54 minutes ago, ALine said:

build an AGI

Do you mean to build one as a private initiative, keeping it secret, to be part of a team that manages to create the first one, or something else?

Edit: just noted another thread providing details

Early I the thread I hinted at the issues with your model giving you opportunity to explain. But so far, as seen in the responses, each attempt att explaining or correcting introduces one or several new contradictions. Either just a geometrical impossibility or something fundamentally incompatible with observations, confirmed by multiple different methods. The result so far is a large pile contradicting random guesses connected by misunderstandings of current theories.

But don't despair; open a thread in the mainstream section and ask a question such as: "Why does every application, however ingenious, of Newtonian mechanics fail to explain the universe's expansion?" Several members on this forum may be able to provide the answers in simplified terms.

32 minutes ago, Max70 said:

But as CBH gets farther, don't the acceleration of any supernova in the blue circle tend to align with the acceleration of the Earth ?

You seem to lack an intuitive feel for gravity and forces, maybe you should use mathematics instead of guessing? (edit, do what @Genady said)

Hint: what happens to your proposed expansion once you get far away? Every arrow you have drawn is of almost equal length and (almos exactly) parallell. Again; contradicting the expansion you are trying to explain.

10 minutes ago, ALine said:

Which should I focus my time on if I were trying to build an AGI? Intelligence research or cognition research?

Intuitive answer;
Study whatever gets you a job at one of the large companies that invests heavily in the area. Stay healthy and hope to live very long. Expect failure.
Or
study biology and philosophy; aim for AGI not based on current (currently hyped) concepts. Be prepared to fail.

Assuming AGI=Artificial general intelligence

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

Suppose you have a black box containing 10000 balls and you can't mix them.

You extract from the box 100 balls that are on the surface and they are all red.

Is it scientific to conclude that all the balls in the box are red ?

No, because the balls deeper into the box may have a different color.

Your analogy is constructed so that someone with information deliberately hides it from someone else.  What reason is there to believe the universe is constructed in such a way? 

22 hours ago, Max70 said:

The objects in the internal turns of the spiral have greater acceleration than the objects in the external turns.

S1 and S2 are two Type Ia supernovae, ra₁ and ra₂ are their accelerations relative to Earth. I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH.

1: What does the arrows mean? acceleration? Is S1 moving outwards?

2: You base your idea on galaxies. According to observations galaxies do not expand, but the universe do. Your idea for an explanation of universe expansion is simply not logical (in addition to the obvious mathematical issues explained by other members)

5 hours ago, Max70 said:

All the objects in a sphere centred in the colossal black hole have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole, from any direction in the three-dimensional space.

That seems to contradict both observations and your title of this thread?

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

There does not seem to be any spamming or malicious intent, but some of the responses seem to be highly verbose (in the kind of way that would be marked down by a good teacher for "padding") and curiously devoid of any insight.  
 

Good points; I had not taken your recent exchange into account. I would add the option of "AI overconfidence" for lack of a formal word or definition. A user may participate in a discussion in good faith with no malicious intend but is unable to interpret, internalise or curate AI / LLM output for the context.
 

Side note; I used an LLM to generate a definition of this option and this is the output:
The act of using automated tools, such as language models, to generate content on topics beyond one's expertise, which is then presented as knowledgeable input. This behavior is characterized by a significant reliance on technology to simulate expertise or competence, without the individual possessing the necessary understanding or skills to assess the accuracy, relevance, or context-appropriateness of the generated content.

27 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ?

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something*. You might want to open a separate thread. 

3 hours ago, Max70 said:

But this is a spiral motion,

Your new pictures seem to have the same issues that I hinted at in my picture (and that @joigus helped highlighting). Objects that we observe accelerating away from each other seem to get closer in your model. The universe is not one dimensional. The universe is also not a flat disk as a spiral galaxy. Hint: look at how the stars move in a (flat) galaxy disk versus the movement of matter in a rotating sphere. 

There are other issues but this one is pretty simple to explain and discuss, hence my initial focus on this. 

*) https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=Copyright does not protect ideas,your written or artistic work.

14 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I can provide one if needed

Here is your picture with an object added, visualising the challenge. Our observations of the expanding universe shows that the distance (d, the purple arrow) between objects S1 and S2b is increasing. Your model seems to claim the opposite, a decreasing distance d:

22 hours ago, exchemist said:

 I had assumed these programs would only respond to a request, but I'm starting to wonder if they go off on fishing expeditions to gather information to regurgitate. Does anyone know if they do this? 

I do not claim to know but I'll add some opinions. It is technically feasible to have an LLM that interacts with a forum and to drive this behaviour by other means than in response to a user prompt. For instance by using plugin infrastructure that some vendors provide. But I'm not sure of there is enough value for an LLM provider to allow the LLM to start conversations with the internt to harvest data. When I look at the quality and volume of the answers to the posts that looks like generated by "automated generative AI" there is not much to harvest, compared to just scrape conversations between (non-AI) members. So what drives the behaviour that we see on the forums? A few ideas. Note that I would require forum data not accessible to members, logs etc, to confirm anything so these are best guesses based on experiences from working with IT and some AI models and systems:

1 Spam. It takes time for spammers to manually build reputation before spamming and some may use generative AI to create a few "Science-looking" initial posts. This means the spammer cuts & pasts between an LLM and the forum

2 Spam-account as a service. Bots that, given a login account, tries to build reputation by using output from an LLM . Then, based on the level of interaction the bot's posts created these accounts, with their track record, can be used for spam. Or traded for others to use for spam. 

3 Automated spamming. Bots that have a queue of commercial material to promote and selects an account from no 2 above. In this case the "reputation" built in step 2 drives what content step 3 selects to promote.

4 experiments. Individuals or teams trying various LLMs against the forum members evaluating the outcome. There are emerging possibilities to run "small scale" LLMs outside the large well known vendors' control. Lower grade hardware usually means a less performant LLM which could explain some of the more surprisingly bad posts in the past. (This aspect of generative AI, locally hosted LLMs, is something I investigate currently)

5 sabotage. Disturb the forum and the community

I do not find it likely that well established software vendors are actively working as described above, it would likely be nice players, possibly with malicious intent. The list is not meant to be exhaustive. 

5 minutes ago, Max70 said:

The accelerating expansion has been discovered observing the Type Ia supernovae. 

That is not the only evidence. Did you try drawing a picture? I can provide one if needed

51 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I don't deal with the expansion of the whole universe but only with the accelerating expansion of the part of the universe that we have observed until now.

Lets try another approach the you may find helpful. 

Look at the following picture you provided:

20 hours ago, Max70 said:

This is shown in the following Figure 3:

Figure 3

 

1: What happens if you use two dimensions, as in a galaxy disk? In a galaxy there are other objects around CBH, at the same distance from CBH as S1, E and S2. If everything is accelerating towards CBH then objects must get closer and closer as the radial distance decreases? 

6 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Anyway CMB can't be used to disprove my hypothesis.

Why? 

9 hours ago, Max70 said:

I quote the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background:

"With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions."

If you read the whole section it states: A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the data.* How do that support your idea?

*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

37 minutes ago, Max70 said:

In my theory, the accelerating expansion of the OP is simply caused by the gravity of the CBH. My theory is simpler than other theories and therefore, for the Occam's razor, preferable.

Hello. How does your idea take into account that observations show the CMB is remarkably uniform across the sky? The observations shows that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. How is this uniformity consistent with your description of the universe?

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

Before I could explain anything, you need to explain how these statements conflict. And yes, I missed this post earlier. I answered the other part of your question in another reply.

On 5/8/2024 at 3:18 AM, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured.

measuring the speed of light (photon speed) is relatively easy and does not require experts at NIST. And hence it contradicts:

On 5/9/2024 at 4:49 PM, Aetherwizard said:

the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST 

37 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

The prevailing view is that a physical linear timeline is real.

The prevailing view in physics does not assert that a 'physical linear timeline' is real. General relativity is widely accepted and demonstrates that time is relative and not linear (and also absolute). The theory's equations are non-linear.

2 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

What questions relative to my theory do you want to see answered?

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266513
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266462

23 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. 

If I have the funds; what experiment should I run to falsify chronovibration and hence your ideas? Assume I have the means to run experiments that are focusing on concepts in established theories and the equipment is built by engineers whose methods relies on current understanding of physics. 

The following two statements do seem to contradict each other, can you clarify? (In case you missed the question earlier)

On 5/8/2024 at 3:18 AM, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured.

23 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST