The birth of the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT):

[Geoff Dann]

I just can't wait to see another mathematical formalisation of your theory which doesn't depend on it. Do you really think that you can translate metaphysics and philosophy to equations just like you translate different languages?

In some specific cases, yes you can. I believe if we could go back to 1905 but with AI, and explained Special Relativity to an AI in words, it would have been able to generate the equations from the description. Why not? Can you explain why this is theoretically impossible?

 

[marcin]

In some specific cases, yes you can. I believe if we could go back to 1905 but with AI, and explained Special Relativity to an AI in words, it would have been able to generate the equations from the description. Why not? Can you explain why this is theoretically impossible?

I think that only the logical falsehood is theoretically impossible. I think that you should ask how likely this is. If you give me your own explanation of Special Relativity without copy-pasting and using LLM, then I'll tell you how likely this is for me.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I think that only the logical falsehood is theoretically impossible. I think that you should ask how likely this is. If you give me your own explanation of Special Relativity without copy-pasting and using LLM, then I'll tell you how likely this is for me.

You mean that it is theoretically impossible to travel in time? I know that -- I am not saying this is actually theoretically possible. It is a thought experiment, not a real suggestion.

My position is that only the present is fully real. 1905 no longer exists, so no, we can't go back there.

 

[marcin]

I believe if we could go back to 1905 but with AI, and explained Special Relativity to an AI in words, it would have been able to generate the equations from the description.

My position is that only the present is fully real. 1905 no longer exists, so no, we can't go back there.

You first sentence is conditional, so it has nothing to do with the actual possibility of time travel. It makes the assumption, that it's possible. It regards AI that knows nothing about the Special Relativity.

 

[Geoff Dann]

You first sentence is conditional, so it has nothing to do with the actual possibility of time travel. It makes the assumption, that it's possible. It regards AI that knows nothing about the Special Relativity.

It is also irrelevant whether it is possible or not, because all I am talking about the capability of AI, not the need for time travel.

I am only interested in theoretical possibility of what an AI can do, not in the theoretical possibility of time travel.

 

[marcin]

I think you're talking to yourself right now, because that's exactly what I meant.

 

[marcin]

@Capanda Research I've read your first post. Check this out: https://forums.space.com/threads/ne...dational-problems-in-one-go.71878/post-619870

 

[Capanda Research]

Do you also refuse to answer any questions regarding the quoted equations?

I'd love to see your equations that you wrote before you started to use AI.

If I could send you pictures of workbooks full of equations, progress, and notes, then you'd see.

 

[marcin]

@Capanda Research

1. Measurement problem and all its relationship with consciousness - let’s damage some detectors.

Double slit experiment with single particles. We place damaged detectors on both slits. We damage them in such a way, that their interaction with the particle that causes its detection remains unchanged, but the output showing the detection is broken. Do you expect to see the interference pattern?

If we don’t see the interference pattern, then a particle’s wave function collapses due to its interaction with the damaged detector on one of the slits, even though we can’t see its detection. In that case collapse has nothing to do with our consciousness. Do you agree?

 

[marcin]

If I could send you pictures of workbooks full of equations, progress, and notes, then you'd see.

I'll give you my email on priv.