joigus

He probably meant "the idea of God", if we are careful with the use-mention distinction. But I think he either 1) Was a distinguished idiot; or 2) Was insightful in such a bizarre way that mostly idiots thought they understood him. I personally didn't get much from his philosophy, I must say.

Nietzsche didn't propose to replace God. He proposed that God is dead! An AI should only be as good as what it eats. So we'd better feed them well. That's more Feuerbach than Nietzsche.

Both in mathematics and physics it seems to be happening to some extent. It's been a while since the problem of classifying all finite, simple groups was cracked in its final steps by (non-AI) software, so I think it's been a long time coming. Machines were instrumental in classifying the 26 isolated oddities (the so-called sporadic groups), and that was back in 1983. It's perhaps worth noticing that the proof was later considered wanting and it was finally clinched by humans in 2004. I still think that the process relies very heavily on clueing in the machine, as well as it does on humans assesing what the former is saying. I don't think the next vital, perpendicular thinking process will come from AI, though. It's probably gonna be more like 'will you check this for me while I get some sleep?' Let's all hope it will remain that way.

As a matter of fact, I don't think the OP actually even understands what mathematics is really about. It's not about predicting events that may or may not happen. It's rather about logical structures that are possible in a space of logical premises. Whether something will or will not happen is not a subject of mathematics. That's rather a subject of engineering, physics, the theory of dynamical systems at large (economy, populations, etc.), chemistry, and the like. So there's a fundamental mismatch in the premise, I think.

Absolutely. There's nothing in a year that's not to do with this part of the galaxy. But there's much in a month that is to do with being Babilonian.

Describe they do. The question is whether they do it correctly, with some actual correlation between them and the event and features they purport to describe. They don't.

This is what I understood by 'numerology': https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/numerology?q=numerology No cause and effect, no reasonable connection, no definitions, propositions, lemmas, theorems and corolaries. No (A) implies (B), (A) if and only if (B), no principle of induction, no demonstration... Nothing of that. 'Reading' the entrails of animals is no part of zoology or anatomy either.

Why would what , at best, is a pervesion of standard mathematics be a part of standard mathematics?

🤣

Not taking a dive in a pool because there's, say, 10⁻¹⁰ chance of finding a shark in it, is not a grown-up concern IMO. It's more akin to night terrors. This is like not taking a dive in a pool because there's 10⁻¹⁰ chance of finding a shark in it.

I needed to highlight these two comments and sub-comments of them, as I think they're so close to the essence of what the problem might be if AI is given too much leeway in telling us what's next. Assigning statistical weights to conjectures, answers to hard questions, and the like, relies very heavily on previous answers to (as well as posing of) similar questions, never getting us necessarily anywhere closer to unexpected avenues of inquiry or further questions, or counter-arguments.

This kind of thinking has a tendency to snowball that, as I remember, reached a peak somewhere around 2008, bordering into horror-sci-fi: https://cerncourier.com/a/the-day-the-world-switched-on-to-particle-physics/ I remember arguments both from theory (evaporation of black holes) and experiment (existence of high-energy particles from cosmic rays) putting the matter to rest.

Depends on how you define a reality. It would be essentially different from 'red, blue, and green' reality if we have to make room for quantum mechanics of spin. But that would take us off on a tangent.

I think you're getting confused here. Space itself is not of a statistical nature. Things going on in space are. Space is just a backcloth of everything else. You cannot set up a proper statistical question that involves only space with nothing in it. Wally can be here or Wally can be there. But there's nothing to be done with here and there without some kind of Wally.