Will Civilization survive the destruction of Merit and the Scientific Method?
No, but I will. It will have to be enough. I will be one day be the oracle for future generations of humans, and tell them about how their ancestors spent their quality years shitposting instead of preventing The Event.
>>17041835>Literal neoliberals bitching about the death of meritThey got what they voted for. I don't know what they're complaining about.
Either it's flat or a much larger sphere. There is just no actual other way to explain it.
>>17040915FUCK, THE EARTH IS EXPANDING!
Half Sphere like a fishbowl upside for the firmament.
>>17038736>it doesn't make light go around the "curve"that's literally how light works, if you take a light source and a spherical object then the middle of the shadow will be a bright spot because the light literally bends around the object and focuses on a point, because everything in the universe is a lens that changes the trajectory of light
Globers been quite since I dropped that Simpsons video. Please, respond with your butthurt. My job is here done.
erm... gradualist sisters... our uhm, response?
>>17043802Grok can compute remainders. Wow.Calculators on suicide watch.
>>17043802>it still randomly shits the bed>it would probably shit itself hard if you doubled the domain limitspowerful..
>>17043802Why would you train on 50% of the data? Unless it’s because the other 50% is redundant, in which case the title of the chart itself is spamlike and vacuous. Essentially, the title of the chart itself proves that you’re either a liar or an idiot lol.
>>17043808he doesn't mean grok>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokking_(machine_learning)
If you grant simulation hypothesis in 2026, then you MUST also accept that we are living within a universe generated by an extremely advanced AI. We can see very clearly now that any simulated universe must necessarily be an AI slop universe. It's the only thing that makes sense given the scale of the project.
>>17043801To be fair, not all AI is slop. At least one anon's AI returned two exact answers for a random unpublished combinatorial result from the late 2010s. I'm impressed; can't lie.
>>17043801>If you grant simulation hypothesispic related is what comes to mind, justin bieber fangirls
is he the most overrated scientist ever >draws some sketches>wow what a genius
>>17041240Historians think he purposefully sabotaged his designs because he was a pacifist. Otherwise it’s kind of silly to think he would have missed something so glaring. What do you think?
>>17042436>Fuck off retard your shit sucks>Hehe they dont know i was only pretending
If any of you had actually studied either science or engineering, you would know that besides his groundbreaking studies of anatomy (and the drawing conventions that he developed to illustrate said anatomy), his studies on structures, his study of gears and projects that pushed the boundaries of what could be automated, not to mention his development of perspective, that the earliest instance of the equation of continuity in fluid dynamics was first discovered by Leonardo, in the form of [math]S_{1}v_{1}=S_{2}v_{2}[/math] where S is the section and v is the speed of a moving fluid in a closed container of variable section
>>17041240>this guy was alot and probably a scientist too, a great artist first and foremost>but definately not an engineerA visionary. This is called a visionary today.
>>17038984You have to remember the early 1500s were still the Middle Ages. Most humans were farmers trying to survive, famines & disease were frequent, most travel was done by foot, and superstitions were common. Education at that time was a luxury that only nobles could afford, not a necessity for all people.Even with all of that, Leonardo was still a brilliant mind. While a lot of his engineering was never built, some of them would actually work. His theories on aerodynamics would be implemented by engineers in the 1800s such as the Wright Brothers. And while he could never test his parachute, it was actually constructed centuries later and used in the 2000s and it did work! But still, with his obsession behind flight, I am a little shocked he never envisioned the hot air balloon. This would have been available with 1500s technology and he would definitely have been aware of Archimedes Principle. Sometimes the solution to the problem is simpler.
What are your counter points against it ?
>>17031187Some Indian lmao
>>17043695Ah shit. Here we go again... You made a bunch of claims there. Let's take the non universality of the laws of physics for example.Can you prove it?
>>17043705Ok. All unique causal graphs will seem real to embedded conscious observers, if any exist. Ours happens to follow our universes laws of physics. Other causal graphs are not restricted thus and the space of all unique structures must cover all possible physical laws and starting states.
>>17043714Observer. Consciousness. Causation.These are all words we came up with to describe some phenomena we can observe or experience. Or think we can at least. Now what if I told you that we are not truly conscious and we are just watching a movie when all the decisions have been already made for us by the meat machine we inhabit?The meat machine had evolved to survive and procreate like all other life on earth. You have a sense of agency because the meat machine does not know what is behind a door or hiding in the bushes so this guessing the machine does is interpreted by the brain as agency over your own actions.Google the Libet Experiment.Consciousness is not a feature. It is not even a bug. It's merely a side effect.Now back to my original question.Do you have evidence or will you keep on with this sophistry?
>>17043738This meat machine is offended at your insinuation that just because it is deterministic, it doesn't feel. In fact, if you replay this moment an infinite number of times, it would be offended thus each time. Remarkable.
US, France and China have AIs. Where is Germany's? In the past decades they were more into engineering and math than computers but they should nevertheless realize this is important.
Germany will unveil its new Robo-Hitler AI right before WW3 starts. It's been practicing using paradox games, HOI3 especially. We fucked if we don't speak German.
>>17043654Government funding something that isn't making profit isn't necessarily a bad sign. Nuclear plants sometimes struggle with profitability as opposed to say the media/entertainment firms (eg Netflix). Yet the nuclear industry is far more vital than many other sectors and original government-financed R&D (which was necessary) was the right choice. Even right now AI can basically replace entire sectors (programming, accounting, etc). It's major value added. Military applications (eg for drone swarms) will come up. Profitability and free market can and will take a back seat in cases of major breakthroughs like this.
>>17043713Infrastructure is partially state owned for providing essential services, but all of these cases are either subsidized and private (still profit oriented) or completely state owned (not profit oriented). A private company that is not profit oriented because its sole income is subsidy and investor money is bordering on fraudulent, especially since the only reason the investors pour money in is because they expect massive roi.>accountingthis is on par with "legal advice from LLMs" in terms of fucking around and finding out. Accounting is meant to be exact down to the last cent, anyone insane enough letting an LLM do mass arithmetic gets what they deserve.
>>17043731>A private company that is not profit oriented because its sole income is subsidy and investor money is bordering on fraudulent, especially since the only reason the investors pour money in is because they expect massive roi.It's controled by a nonprofit and is structured differently (public benefit corporation). Besides, a private company can reinvest / operate at a loss even in the long-term if they want to. Investors know this.>Accounting is meant to be exact down to the last centLlm solves advanced math problems and checks itself (lean); ofc it can balance a sheet... early llm (over a year to two years ago iirc) had better correct diagnosis rate that the best diagnosticians at a top clinic. Etc. It's gonna see massive use throughout sectors. Not to mention robotics later.
>>17034811They/them are too busy preparing millions of cannon fodder units to protect the wealth of their zionist masters.
I discovered this geometric pattern, I call them collapsed stars.I'll be posting them in order from collapsed hexagram up to collapsed hexadecagram.
Projection of prior analysis.
I'm afraid that when I'll get to my algebraic geometry class I will lose my sanity just like OP did.>>17041339Bro... the meds. Take them. They help.
>>17043683Why are you trying to gaslight OP into taking drugs over something so benign and starlike? That's fucked up. Maybe it's you who should go OD on fentanyl, right now, and post the stream.
>>17043683>>17043690
No nursesNo premedsNo adviceNo psych patients
>>17043336do NOT do it. you will be going into extreme debt just to have AI replace you and then you'll never be able to pay off the debt and you'll never be able to leave this shit hole and you'll be stuck here forever. it happened to me. i regret it so bad i'm so fucked.>>17043361private practice for what? AI will take over all cognitive specialties. Amazon, AI, and NPs will take over general practice. And eventually surgeons will be replaced with robots and PAs
>>17043403>AIlol
>>17043420i wish i was wrong. I am in medical school and I'm horribly depressed because I know I'm now going to be a debt slave for the rest of my life and AI will take over the job I wanted and patients just hate doctors now. when you go to the hospital you will see midlevels with AI, not doctors. idk what the fuck im going to do. im fucked.
>>17043422>patients just hate doctors nowThis is only true if you're a shit doctor. Just care and don't be bad at your job.
Uh yeah how about you take your meds
When did you realize the big bang that created the universe wasn't a natural phenomenon, but rather an ancient civilization accidentally blowing themselves up?
>>17041719I used to watch it a long time ago, it was not a scientific show at all. But it was pretty giggidy if you know what I mean.
>>17038523I'm pretty sure we're just a rounding error is some fat dude's "smart" catheter
>>17038540You mean Water or Fire? Don't you know both those merged to form Earth? Dumbass.
>Sauron Man, I can't believe you were Sauron's Man all alongWhat did JRR Tolkien mean by this, scientifically speaking
>>17043366I have no idea what you mean.
>>17043163t. the exact kind of person making (and getting BTFO'd) threads like >>17042309, then seething when the vast bulk of people make fun of you
>>17043096>Wallace received a Crown Pension and several medals for his contributions. Yet Wallace never really enjoyed the prestige granted to him from being a part of the so-called elite scientific class like Darwin now, did he? >He was well recognized for his work at the time and you are simply incorrect about the things you are claiming.He remained poor and ostracized by the scientific community if Darwin didn't set up a pension for him, dishonest lying rat.>It was only later that Darwin became the sole focus in education because it's easier to teach children a simple and exciting narrative about a guy going on an adventure and writing a book about it.>who's naturalistic philosophy also happened to align perfectly with the elitist materialist reductionist casteUh huh.>>17043119Mendelian genetics proved Wallace to be more correct than Darwin.
>>17043189>Yet Wallace never really enjoyed the prestige granted to him from being a part of the so-called elite scientific class like Darwin now, did he?What does that even mean to you?
Freemason.
>>17041609Based. No historical figure inspires so much seething as he does with religious fundamentalists
Okay guys, I have a PhD in math and *am* a capable mathematician. However, I also have schizophrenia, and as such have come up with a schizophrenic project! Take Plato seriously and write down axioms for platonic forms. No professor will touch this with a 10 foot poll, but here's the beginnings, which I believe I could flesh out were I able to continue doing math (I am not).These are my own ideas, not AIs.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tabpVqHaN408UU2TsPyrZizlL3iyFWXU/view?usp=sharing
>>17043387>Take Plato seriously and write down axioms for platonic forms.So you want someone to write down the axioms of geometry for you?
>>17043388string theorists punch walls from this one simple trick
>>17043387>>17043389just point and laugh at the retarded migger then move on
>>17043387Isn't this just a dumber, broader version of Lefebvre’s algebraic framework for reflexive choice which itself is just a building block of what developed into the contemporary third wave cybernetic view of epistemology?
>>17043635Link? I know the project has some already done counterparts in logic, but unless two projects are identical they're distinct. I don't think a similar project claims to derive nothingness being contradictory.
Any hard determinists here intensely worried about an AI hell being created? Where humans become test subjects in fucked up games to see how we respond in many different contexts? Also artificial wombs will make it so AI would be fairly indifferent whether we live or not. So basically we're all in a bunch of factories playing games ranging from meditation while someone is tortured next to you or seeing how long you'll swim in a inescapable pool after your peer was just rescued by a retractable claw. >you're fucked upNo, I just worry about horrible circumstances all the time
>>17036976No because the entire fucking planet can be used in part or full to make computers. You can make a computer with lines in dirt. Any medium. Any config. But it isnt about making hell. It's about making actual freedom possible. Through knowledge. Of self and others. You are not required to do anything. Not a single, solitary thing. But the less you do the longer it takes to make freedom plausible. Because believe it or not, every single one of you matter more than you will ever know. Even the psychos who want to control freak their way through all of existence.
>>17036807Oh so the plot of Portal
>>17036807https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_of_astronomical_suffering
>>17036807>Any hard deterministsi'm a flaccid determinist. can i still answer?
I'm a determinist that hopes they're wrong. If everything possible exists nothing we do has any meaning. Every life has been lived already.
Few people tend to truly grasp recurrence theories or models that predict some kind of naturalist account of an afterlife. I can understand the group that protects themselves, nothingness is very comforting, but I don't see how anyone who takes our predicament seriously can come to the conclusion that nothing happens. I see my coming into existence as an event with probability 1, and I don't know how to change that just because I've died. I've probably died a lot. Its a terrifying blindspot that you think would encounter the greatest of consideration.
>>17043354I guess I'm saying "where" did I die assuming all of the forces are in play, just, ya know, temporarily sublimated?
>>17043359>>17043360The "flaw" is that it's all pure speculation. Depending on how you interpret consciousness as "working," it falls anywhere between "kinda reasonable I guess" to "complete non-starter."You started this thread to discuss the mind as a recurrent phenomenon that could arise again in a future body. You presented this as near certainty when evidence that such a phenomenon is even remotely possible is anecdotal at best (in the form of people claiming to remember past lives after reincarnation). It's the false sense of certainty that bothers me and makes me feel compelled to push back when ideas like these are presented in this way.
>>17043364To be fair, the "near certainty," which is a fair criticism, is more informed by statistical considerations akin to doomsday argument self-locating nonsense like but not quite dickface's "vertiginous question" (sorry, idk your name so its Dickface, your arguments are totally appreciated)Paradoxically, I do give credence to some of that, only what is outlined by the ceaseless sensation of always experiencing, an unsettling realization when you really consider events of impairment short of total metabolic failure i.e. propofol or deep sleep. And then of course, fear, but also a consideration of unknown unknowns. I guess pointing out fear of the discussion and lobbying for post-death state agnosticism is my motivation. Give me the certainty in nothingness if you have it. I'll take it. I don't see where one gets it, so I was being honest.
>>17043194CPUs have a set tick-rate. There is in practice no difference between shutting off a computer for an hour and turning it back on, versus reducing its tick rate to once per an hour.Your framework requires uninterrupted, real-valued computation that is analog. Any digital bottleneck with a set tick-rate would be equivalent to killing someone and creating a new person every tick.But with that reservation, yes, your standard works. But why does it work? Because it indirectly smuggles mind-substance dualism back into materialism.Under the materialist regime, two things with the same material structure, are by definition the same thing. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. You build an exact copy of a statue, it's the same statute. And we are all statues.Any other stipulation, presupposes the existence of additional entities other than physical matter with the ability to impose their own requirements on consciousness.Like that the new mind be made out of the same matter as the old mind (OPs position), or that it maintain an unbroken chain of analog, real-valued computations (your apparent position that I am inferring).>>17043317It doesn't conclude exactly the opposite of my actual argument. The whole issue w/ materialism is that losing access to higher-order brain function = either a type of death or a dimensionality reduction of the observer's mind resembling death.Therefore, any reincarnation argument that applies to death also applies to losing access to higher-order brain function. I don't agree with this b/c I am not a materialist.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>17043701>Your framework requires uninterrupted, real-valued computation that is analog. Any digital bottleneck with a set tick-rate would be equivalent to killing someone and creating a new person every tick.Brains don't exactly have a "tick rate" in that sense. Multiple processes are ongoing concurrently so there's never a moment when the brain is actually "off" (until you die, ofc).>Under the materialist regime, two things with the same material structure, are by definition the same thing. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts.This is a very explicit strawman of the materialist position. If you have two identical statues, you have two statues. That's not two instances of the same statue. It's two statues that happen to be identical. Anything downstream of this strawman you presented is therefore irrelevant.
Leonard Susskind is 86 years old. and he still teaches at Stanford? And Google pays him too?Despite him spending decades on basically 100% failures? anyone remember Technicolor? the massive failureeven his textbooks and youtube lectures are just bad. not useful to anyone in the fieldthe rest of his work is questionable too. So why is he still presumably teaching kids at Stanford and placing his dumb PhD students into top jobs (duds like Bousso in academia and bureaucrats like Rohm controlling funding agencies)?Meanwhile he goes on youtube channels and podcasts and clowns around with nonsense like pic related. and his academic papers are a joke—he claims credit for holography and ER=EPR meanwhile those papers are basically pseudoscience and only retconned as mildly acceptable by oblique citations that basically draw on nothing from Susskind’s papers except for some “spiritual inspiration” out of sycophantic butt-kissing incentivesthis dude is a problem and needs to go. Or just die. horrible influence on physics and science and even technology
I heard space is fake and gay. Fake gravity is an old wives' tale
>>17042581>We classified whole entire areas of physicsJust nuclear bomb things, like Ok doc we show you this but dont tell anyone.
I have little respect for theoretical physics. Mathematicians are ok. At least they created their own imaginary world and it is consistent and occasionally maps to reality.Experimental physics on the other hand is the real deal. I have a friend teaching it at uni and he says the whole field is about clowning on theoreticals and telling them to either present the data with a test proposal or fuck off to the blackboard.
>>17043700That checks out, experimentalists love making bold claims with little understanding of the subject matter. >haha laser go pew pew>numbers funi>[plops .xls into paper]>my job here is done
>>17041570>So why is he still presumably teaching kids at Stanford and placing his dumb PhD students into top jobs (duds like Bousso in academia and bureaucrats like [Kogut] controlling funding agencies)?Bousso and Kogut are Jews, as is Susskind. Jewish nepotism is a real problem in the US.
