kromem @ kromem @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

1,655

Joined

2 yr. ago

Positive: You can find out nearly anything.

Negative: You'll be driven mad seeing all the people clearly wrong about what you now know who are uninterested in actually finding out the facts yet unashamed in spouting off their misinformation.

While Superderminism is a valid solution to both Bell's paradox and this result, it isn't a factor in the Frauchiger-Renner paradox so there must be something else going on at very least in addition to it (which then complies less with Occam's razor).

And it would be pretty superfluous for our universe to behave the way it does around interactions and measurements if free will didn't exist.

First of, our universe doesn't change the moment we touch something, else any interaction would create a parallel universe, which in itself is fiction and unobservable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Then you talk about removing persistent information. Why would you do that and how would you do that? What is the point of even wanting or trying to do that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

No Man's Sky is using generic if else switch cases to generate randomness.

If/else statements can't generate randomness. They can alter behavior based on random input, but they cannot generate randomness in and of themselves.

Even current AI is deterministic

No, it's stochastic.

Ah, Lemmy...

"I don't understand what you're talking about, but you're wrong."

A reminder for anyone reading this that you are in a universe that behaves at cosmic scales like it is continuous with singularities and whatnot, and behaves even at small scales like it is continuous, but as soon as it is interacted with switches to behaving like it is discrete.

If the persistent information about those interactions is erased, it goes back to behaving continuous.

If our universe really was continuous even at the smallest scales, it couldn't be a simulated one if free will exists, as it would take an infinite amount of information to track how you would interact with it and change it.

But by switching to discrete units when interacted with, it means state changes are finite, even if they seem unthinkably complex and detailed to us.

We use a very similar paradigm in massive open worlds like No Man's Sky where an algorithm procedurally generates a universe with billions of planets that can each be visited, but then converts those to discrete voxels to track how you interact with and change things.

So you are currently reading an article about how the emerging tech being built is creating increasingly realistic digital copies of humans in virtual spaces, while thinking of yourself as being a human inside a universe that behaves in a way that would not be able to be simulated if interacted with but then spontaneously changes to a way that can be simulated when interacted with.

I really think people are going to need to prepare for serious adjustments to the ways in which they understand their place in the universe which are going to become increasingly hard to ignore as the next few years go by and tech trends like this continue.

When young people talk about the video games you played when you were their age as if they were written in hieroglyphics and relics of a forgotten age.

Until it isn't.

Ask Gaddafi how 'fear' worked out as a tactic in the end.

it's a tech product that runs a series of complicated loops against a large series of texts and returns the closest comparison, as it stands it's never going to be dangerous in and of itself.

That's not how it works. I really don't get what's with people these days being so willing to be confidently incorrect. It's like after the pandemic people just decided that if everyone else was spewing BS from their "gut feelings," well gosh darnit they could too!

It uses gradient descent on a large series of texts to build a neural network capable of predicting those texts as accurately as possible.

How that network actually operates ends up a black box, especially for larger models.

But research over the past year and a half in simpler toy models has found that there's a rather extensive degree of abstraction. For example, a small GPT trained only on legal Othello or Chess moves ends up building a virtual representation of the board and tracks "my pieces" and "opponent pieces" on it, despite never being fed anything that directly describes the board or the concept of 'mine' vs 'other'. In fact, in the Chess model, the research found there was even a single vector in the neural network that could be flipped to have the model play well or play like shit regardless of the surrounding moves fed in.

It's fairly different from what you seem to think it is. Though I suspect that's not going to matter to you in the least, as I've come to find that explaining transformers to people spouting misinformation about them online has about the same result as a few years ago explaining vaccine research to people spouting misinformation about that.

Dave the diver. Very much enjoying so far.

And as someone whose pandemic hobby involved a deep dive into the history of the sea peoples, I've been enjoying a secondary layer to the game as well.

Quantum mechanics and relativity are, at least currently, incompatible theories. Relativity depends on continuous things, which is why it has singularities and what not. But quantum mechanics has minimum discrete units that don't play nice with gravity and relativity.

Also, it's still an open debate as to whether quantum mechanics is applicable to all sizes of things. There's some consequences around that being the case and it's one of the suggestions for an assumption resolving recent paradoxes around incompatibilities between the theory and our expectations for behaviors. If it does apply to larger objects, the consequences are basically that either there's no free will and superderminism is true or else that quanta don't actually exist until observed.

In fact, currently we haven't been able to observe quantum behavior in anything large enough to measure gravitational effects from. Which may be where a fundamental limit exists, given the incompatibility between relativity and QM.

Relativity only relates to the relative shape of spacetime and movement through it.

So for example, things occurring faster for one inertial frame vs another, or something being closer to an observer moving quickly than for one stationary.

It's exclusive to the combination of spacetime curvature and one's momentum within it.

How do you think relativity does explain it?

That wouldn't explain why the two results end up not agreeing sometimes.

I agree that it relates to how the observer entangles with the system, but you see this kind of error class occurring in net code all the time.

Player 1 shoots an enemy around the same time as player 2. Player 1 has a locally rendered resolution to the outcome of having killed the enemy and gets awarded the xp, and player 2 has the same result.

The server has to decide if it is going to let both local clients be correct or resolve in a way that reverses the outcome for one of the clients. For things that don't really matter, it lets both be correct.

Here, each individual outcome is basically Bell's paradox, where we know there needs to be consistent results no matter how each observer behaves. But in this case, when a second layer of abstraction is added, the results are capable of disagreeing.

It looks very similar to a sync error, and relativity doesn't in any way explain it.

Like sync errors?

Information that we are in one would appear in weird ways? Like maybe side effects of simulating a continuous universe in a calculable way which would require quantization, but would leave the universe with a seemingly incompatible framework of continuous macro behavior (such as general relativity) and discrete behavior (such as quantum mechanics)?

That's basically the thesis of David Chalmer's Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.

That there is no meaningful difference between a simulated and non-simulated existence.

Most people are still caught up on Plato's view of a copy of an original being lesser though.

Order of operations.

Creationism says "there was nothing other than something that always existed (don't ask how it existed), and then it created this universe."

Simulation theory, particularly ancestor simulation theory, says that a chaotic universe very similar to the one we find ourselves in spontaneously came to exist with or without design, but that eventually that universe reached a point where it could simulate itself and we're in that copy.

The first requires an intelligent being effectively pre-existing everything else. Simulation theory allows for the intelligent beings creating our particular version of things to have evolved from everything else having existed first.

That's a pretty important difference.

DeSantis conveniently didn't mention Mosque leaders as teaching the kids. I wonder why that was. Does Florida not recognize Islam as a religion? Or did he just not want to point out that was a possibility...

You asked for a rebuttal below, so here's a quick one:

You present a clearly false dichotomy.

If your hypothesis of "no difference" was true, we should expect to see extensive Biden merchandise worn by the "blue team" and golden statues of him.

Biden isn't beloved and worshipped by Democrats. They just think "this guy is a lot less bad than derpy Hitler" and maybe even "you know, despite inheriting a lot of lemons in his first term this old guy is pretty decent at making lemonade."

That is markedly different from the "red team" who is photoshopping their candidate onto muscle bound bodies and desecrating the flag with that abomination which they then turn into boxer shorts to wear to rallies where they chant for the Biblical destruction of the other team.

So yeah, you're getting downvoted. Because it's a ridiculous false dichotomy that's readily apparent to any objective analysis. Even if there's a kernel of truth in there being rampant partisanship and team identity, the literal worship of the right for Trump is unique to them.

It doesn't matter if you're racist, sexist, or homophobic, it doesn't matter if you commit crimes, perpetrate injustice, blaspheme, or maliciously harm others, as long as you believe in Trump, he forgives you. It's intoxicating to some people. He's like the opposite of Jesus.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that literally is the canonical conceptualization of Jesus.

"As long as you accept him into your heart as your lord and savior, all is forgiven" is basically the lifeblood of modern Christianity. It's why you have people proselytizing to death row inmates to "save them" before execution.

There's a lot of other aspects that are antithetical to canonical Jesus, who I don't recall having golden toilets or being tried for fraud in paying off a porn star to keep quiet about an extramarital affair - but "he forgives everything" is pretty on brand.

Wait until you find out ants pass the mirror test.