Live data from Hacker News

Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

arxiv.org

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

#151
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravitational lensing, velocity dispersions, etc circles back to the total mass of galaxies. So it shows up on many of the ways we calculate the total mass fraction not just rotation anomalies.

Many of the ways? I guess that's it then, there's no reason to look at the whole picture, and especially no point in reading all the way to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_b...

Your being redundant, Many in this instance obviously implied not every.

Re: Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

#152
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the ways? I guess that's it then, there's no reason to look at the whole picture, and especially no point in reading all the way to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_b...

Your being redundant, Many in this instance obviously implied not every.

Then, in what way is it relevant to my claims here? Namely,

1. Dark matter does not meaningfully introduce billions more parameters into cosmological models than they already have, and

2. Individual galaxies' dark matter fractions are not essential to (not proving, but) strongly suggesting dark matter exists.

Re: Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

#153
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your being redundant, Many in this instance obviously implied not every.

Then, in what way is it relevant to my claims here? Namely, 1. Dark matter does not meaningfully introduce billions more parameters into cosmological models than they already have, and 2. Individual galaxies' dark matter fractions are not essential to (not proving, but) strongly suggesting dark matter exists.

Something being consistent with a model is different than something being sufficient evidence on its own to support a model.

If the observed dark matter fractions of all known galaxies were 0% but the CMB was unchanged we wouldn’t assume dark matter exists. Thus your #2 is false. There’s infinite models consistent with any observation so finding something after a model was created for other reasons is useful as validation, but the chain of logic is still dependent on the prior observations not the model.

In a meaningfully different cosmos different observations would have happened and different models would exist. Trying to pick out specific experiments as sufficient on their own glosses over that particular limitation.

Re: Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

#154
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then, in what way is it relevant to my claims here? Namely, 1. Dark matter does not meaningfully introduce billions more parameters into cosmological models than they already have, and 2. Individual galaxies' dark matter fractions are not essential to (not proving, but) strongly suggesting dark matter exists.

Something being consistent with a model is different than something being sufficient evidence on its own to support a model. If the observed dark matter fractions of all known galaxies were 0% but the CMB was unchanged we wouldn’t assume dark matter exists. Thus your #2 is false. There’s infinite models consistent with any observation so finding something after a model was created for other reasons is useful as valid…

> If the observed dark matter fractions of all known galaxies were 0% but the CMB was unchanged we wouldn’t assume dark matter exists.

No, astrophysicists would eventually figure out something was up when they couldn't replicate the actual spectrum with dark-matter-free simulations. Why would you assume otherwise? Unless you want to dig into the assumptions of the scenario, in which case you're probably proposing a self-inconsistent universe so of course you can draw whatever conclusions you want from it.

> There’s infinite models consistent with any observation...

You can't actually believe this and still believe in science. If observations don't constrain models, then there is no point in observing. And in the long run, there's asymptotically no difference between "prior observations" and later observations. They're just observations that all go into the same model-constraining mill. Scientists are not fools, and are capable of realizing when an initial observation put them on a wrong trail.

You're still barely touching the real point. This all just sounds like rationalizations to avoid the fact that dark matter, for now at least, and for all that it genuinely sucks, is the Occam's razor explanation for the full suite of observations. Why is this so hard to accept?

Re: Fitting an elephant with four non-zero parameters

#155
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing this reductio ad abusrdum, you might reach the fallactious conclusion, as some famous cranks in the past did, that intelligence is even found in plants, animals, women, and even the uncivilized savages of the new continent. Intelligence appears in gradients, not a simple binary.

> Intelligence appears in gradients, not a simple binary. Sure, I'm in no way countering such a notion and your snarky comment is a gross mischaracterization of my comment. So far off I have a difficult time believing it isn't intentional. The "surprise" is not that plants, animals, or even women turn out to be intelligent under the definition of "collection of experiences" but that rocks have intelligence, atom, pho…

You seem to use the word intelligence to mean `consciousness` (if you replaced the first with the latter I would agree with your argument).

I would define "intelligence" as (1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations and (2) the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment.

It turns out that this is also the Merriam-Webster definition [0]. By that definition, yes AlphaZero was learning and understanding how to deal with situations and is intelligent, and yes most machine-learning systems and many other systems that have a specific goal and manipulate data/the environment to optimize for that goal, are intelligent.

By this definition, a non-living, non-conscious entity can be intelligent.

And intelligence has nothing to do with "experiences" (which seem to belong in the "consciousness" debate).

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

Post reply on HN