Recent content by QuarkyMeson

There's physics and then there's red wine physics. Bohmian mechanics, Everettian mechanics, collapse models, etc all reproduce essentially the same physics. That puts the I in interpretation. Both MWI and BM treat the wavefunction roughly the same way. BM has some baggage about particles. Also...

Ah I had things like the meta interpretation of the MWI Many Minds, along with the Modal Interp and Consistent histories in mind.

Ah I remembered reading: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06087 and assumed even that was problematic, but I see your point. I'm looking at it again and this: Is probably also a fair criticism of Saunders paper. If you mean the mainstream MWI positions as I understand them, the worlds are regarded...

Branch number is not uniquely defined by decoherence. Decoherence yields an approximate branch structure, not a count of observers or histories. so "most observers" arguments have no well-defined reference. The fact that an observer only sees outcomes within their own branch does not imply equal...

I found this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13204-8 Having the dimensions of an energy density does not make something an energy density, any more than having dimensions of acceleration makes something an observable acceleration. Soooo, it all feels a bit like...

If AGI is possible then any embodied AGI would be a universal constructor, so the milky way should be full of them. If we believe LLMs are approaching AGI, then this tells us something is very wrong with one of our assumptions. None of this means that LLMs aren't problematic for other reasons...

I'm surprised people still ask Musk about his opinions at all, given his track record. Haha, so just watched more of the interview and I guess musk has never heard any of the many songs that opine on home grown tomatoes.

Physics gives us mathematical models of reality, not reality itself, and even extremely successful models are only approximations, and will only ever remain as such. With QM, many interpretations use the same basic formalism, give or take a postulate here or there, and make the same predictions...

A different question is, do they even need a defense? The DOJ has an entire task force dedicated to anti anti-AI litigation. Judging by the current funding environment and the competition with China for AI supremacy it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities that the federal...

On a curved manifold, velocities at different points belong to different tangent spaces, so they cannot be added directly. You need a chosen way to transport vectors or a symmetry of the manifold to define a total momentum. So I don't think it's generally possible, but you might be able to...

Sure, but I guess my concern is - is it dangerous in and of itself, or rather, is it dangerous because of the way we might misuse it. All the intrinsic danger of LLMs is almost certainly contained within the latter. That's not really different than a lot of other things we've come up with over...

This is stuff that also occurred with all sorts of other technologies. Anyone can file such a claim, doesn't mean it has any validity.

It's already earned it's PhD in math as far as I'm concerned. The lack of von Neumann like universal constructors that build physical copies of themselves from raw materials make some suggestions, so it's pretty safe to say either: 1. We're the first intelligent species since the big bang. 2...

I think the other parts of this have already been covered, but I wanted to comment on the idea that there may be important things in the universe that our eyes cannot see and that science has therefore not studied. The deeper physics probes into smaller length scales, higher energies, or more...

Only if the forest is especially loud already.