swansont

Too much AI is making it into your posts. You’re posting slop that doesn’t answer the question; LLMs don’t understand anything, so it’s not surprising. We’re looking for science to discuss, because this is a science discussion board. What you offer isn’t science. It’s a narrative. We asked for evidence and a testable model, and you didn’t produce them. Don’t bring this topic up again.

This is cool, because among the hurdles for a Th-229 clock is the difficulty in generating enough light for the transition. “For most nuclear transitions, the energy difference between the two states lies in the kilo-electron-volt to mega-electron-volt range. Consequently, such transitions are inaccessible to today’s high-precision lasers, which can deliver photons of typically a few electron volts in energy. A long-known exception is the transition between the ground state and first excited state of thorium-229 nuclei. Indirect measurements over the past 50 years have gradually pinned down that transition’s energy difference to only about 8.4 eV. As a result, this transition is being actively investigated as a candidate for developing a nuclear clock.” https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/19 There’s a bit of boilerplate cheerleading in this, like it’s a press release. Any improvement to GPS a tenuous claim unless you’re talking about a pretty long horizon, and any suggestion of a portable frequency standard relies on the portability of the laser and not just the container for the atoms.

You should not use AI to study Studying is about improving your mind, and offloading effort to a computer algorithm compromises that. The fact that AI hallucinates answers makes it even worse. Plus the ethics of it all.

That’s a different definition than most people have for it. There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion. As has been pointed out, this is an issue of choice and compromise. People have different priorities, and you’re presenting this as if they should have monolithic wants. That’s just naive idiocy, not autocracy. The world doesn’t work that way, nor (IMO) is that a desirable goal. Given your posting history, I’m not inclined to assume that this has more than a passing similarity to the actual truth. Some things that make Putin an autocrat would be the fact that there is no other candidate because he jails and murders his opponent and is not accountable in any meaningful way.

Calling it a computational lattice just kicks the conceptual can down the road. It’s not consistent with our rules - at some point this needs to be based on some kind of solid science, rather than word salad. How does one calculate this “computational load”? You said the relevant term was energy density - how does one determine this?

What makes you think they do not get illnesses, or do not fear getting them?

And in Maxwell’s conviction, conspiring with Epstein, they mentioned girls as young as 14; Epstein wasn’t found guilty of that because he was already dead, but it underscores the point of distinguishing between what he did and what he was found guilty of.

It’s descriptive language. If you fall in love do you literally fall? Collapse of the wavefunction is less cumbersome than “a superposition of multiple wavefunctions of an undetermined state are determined to be one particular eigenstate” But you can have one quantum, e.g. a photon, where there is no threshold of energy

No, because you can’t guarantee there is no interaction. I don’t know that there is one.

Once it’s in an eigenstate there is no probability distribution anymore; there must be an interaction for the state to change. You don’t get interference, but you can toss a coin or roll a die. There are similarities to think about. There are differences, especially when you go out of your way to look at different circumstances. e.g. you allow an interaction for the quantum system, but not for the classical. The coin stays in the same state with no interaction, and that’s exactly what I said about the quantum system.

So where’s the definition of this processing rate? What’s being “processed”? What’s the energy density if you have a vacuum inside a spherical shell that has mass M? To be clear, there would be no gravity there.

You said “according to my thinking” which is not evidence. I didn’t see anything else This is your assertion, so the burden is on you to provide this definition. Nope. But I never said gravity was a physical object, so I don’t see how this is anything but a distraction. It’s a useful concept in some circumstances Asserting that there’s a spectrum is yet another speculation, which, like a house of cards, does not make for a very solid argument. Once you make a measurement the system is in a defined state. It doesn’t evolve unless there’s some other interaction (which there always is) Yes, that’s how probability works. A 1% result can happen; if you identically prepare 1000 particles and do the measurement, you expect 10 to end up in that state. Nothing mystical, or having to do with consciousness

Yes, there’s a slice of folks that are explaining that it’s ephebophilia, which is a distraction that misses the point. We’re not discussing this in a clinical or strict legal setting. (Kinda like arguing that it’s manslaughter, not murder, rather than focusing on the fact that someone’s dead and it’s still illegal). Pedophile is the word that most people know, and splitting hairs is a lame attempt at deflection.

Moderator NoteThere’s not enough context here for discussion. Perhaps you’d like to try again.

Yes really. Your thinking is not what matters. You need evidence. What meaningful definition of consciousness is there that predates life? Can you hand me a wave function? Pilot waves are unconfirmed, which is weird for something that physically exists and would interact so readily. Phase space is a mathematical description. Reifying concepts is a common pitfall in these kinds of discussions. Along the lines of what Mordred said, effects are what is physical, not the math we use to describe them. Why is consciusness required?