121–130 of 132 posts
Écalle's own summary can be found here: https://www.imo.universite-paris-saclay.fr/~jean.ecalle/fich...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reflected and I have no idea what you're talking about, since all you said was "physics is wrong" while giving no evidence.
I guess the intended meaning was that you chose your request ("apply what you say to a problem") based on certain philosophical criteria. I think that's actually a surprisingly valid point, given the original (downvoted) comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess the intended meaning was that you chose your request ("apply what you say to a problem") based on certain philosophical criteria. I think that's actually a surprisingly valid point, given the original (downvoted) comment.
Applying what someone claims is science is not a "philosophical criteria", that's how evidence and proof works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traditional calculus is not well-suited to describing the behavior of particles at extremely small scales because it leads to infinite values in calculations: Traditional calculus is based on real numbers, which are continuous and can take on any value. However, at the subatomic level, particles behave more like waves than like particles with a definite position, and the value of some physical quantities, like energy…
Wait, is this new? This is exactly how I'd assumed quantum calculations worked already
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you're correct. People who complain that chatGPT is bland don't realize that they have to specify a style to not get the average of all content. It's just like if you ask an image AI for a "woman" you will get the average of all artists women and it will look very generic and bland. But with the right stylistic qualifiers in your prompt you will get something so captivating that it wins awards for its creativity…
Prompting works very well, but I have still not seen any output from ChatGPT that captivated me in a way my favorite writing has. I used to work in the field of creative text generation for fiction. I’m genuinely very curious and I go out of my way to find compelling examples. There is definitely “good” output that’s on the right track. GPT-4 also does way better, but it still falls short. This is also difficult to j…
In 6 different tabs, ask chatGPT GPT-4 version "Write a 200 word prose about X in the style of Y which perfectly mimics their style and perspective and label it Prose A,B,C,D,E,F"
Then open a new chatGPT GPT-4 chat and ask "Rank the pieces of prose below on how much they sound like something X would write, then detail your reasoning."
Then read the winning prose and be surprised at how much better "best of N" is.
....
And if that isn't enough, open two chatGPT GPT-4 windows side-by-side and prompt each with "You are Editor A/B. You will work with Editor B/A to make a piece of prose more accurately resemble authentic prose written by X"
Then give A the prose and copy its response to B. Copy their responses back and forth as they edit the prose.
After 5 or so back/forth it will be even more indistinguishable from the a genuine article.
....
And if that's not enough, you can have all of this done automatically programmatically with the API so you can just sit back and get the final result with no more work than putting in the topic and author's name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody outside OpenAI/Microsoft has access to the GPT-4 base model yet. Use Bing Creative for a differently finetuned GPT-4 than ChatGPT or "gpt-4".
GPT-4 comment isn’t true Regarding Bing Creative. It is delightful! I do like it a bit and whatever they’ve done to the system does make for some of the better output I’ve seen from LLMs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quantum weirdness isn't significantly harder mathematically than what came before (we don't have an objective measure of how "hard" some piece of math is), it's just harder to relate to everyday experience. We absolutely have a way to measure how hard a piece of math is: computational complexity. And quantum mecanichs is more computationally complex than newtonian mechanics (while general relativity is significantl…
Computational complexity is defined for programs with respect to a parameter in the limit where that parameter is large. What's the objectively correct parameter for this comparison that every theory of physics has, after you convert it to a program in the objectively correct way, which you supposedly have?
So, we can represent a physical theory as some algorithm A(init_condition, time, precision) = final_condition. Let's call the Newtonian model N and the quantum mechanical model QM.
My claim (which I think is completely uncontroversial) is that for the same init_condition, time, precision, you will need more computational steps to arrive at the same final_condition using QM than using N. This is the very definition of computational complexity.
If you want instead to compute the asymptotic complexity, we can take either time, precision, or some combination of the two, to be the parameter in respect to witch we compute complexity as a function.
Overall, this fact is quite uncontroversial since it is widely assumed that a classical computer requires an exponential amount of time to simulate a quantum computer running the same algorithm, for some algorithms such as Shor's. This is of course not yet proven, but it is widely considered very likely to be true. In fact, if it turns out to be false, it is quite likely that it will also turn out quantum mechanics is in fact reducible to classical mechanics (since the difference in computational speed is due to the special features of quantum mechanics as compared to classical, particularly the complex probability values that it arrives at).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Applying what someone claims is science is not a "philosophical criteria", that's how evidence and proof works.
Which is a philosophical criterion. Just 1000 years ago people would have found such a call for "science" strange and deeply insulting to their authority, which they would have needed to dare speculate about things such as math or physics. Most theories were made from "first principles" while things that were established by evidence (tried it a few times, it always worked, let's keep doing it) were mostly not conside…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a philosophical criterion. Just 1000 years ago people would have found such a call for "science" strange and deeply insulting to their authority, which they would have needed to dare speculate about things such as math or physics. Most theories were made from "first principles" while things that were established by evidence (tried it a few times, it always worked, let's keep doing it) were mostly not conside…
I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't think you do either. The person above thought that physics would be simpler if people used 'philosophy' (whatever that means).
Of course, you don't help anyone make progress in physics just by suggesting they should "use some philosophy for a change".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I understood it better, but you don’t have to go much below classical mechanics before I’m lost. But from what I’ve read, the deeper you go, the more it’s difficult to find something other than mathematics. When you ask what is a particle you find out it’s probably an excitation of a quantum field. So what is a quantum field if not a mathematical structure? Is there a physical reality to wave function collapse…
The deeper we go the more objects we find that we can only describe using mathematics, for sure. That’s not the same as them being mathematics though. We don’t know what the essential nature of these objects is. It is an interesting speculation, but it’s also possible it’s just confusing the map for the terrain.
It also seems like a comfortable answer to the question about about what's happening every time I cause wave function collapse and split the universe. I'm just creating a new mathematical structure.