Ron ܪܵܢ

@TrueAIHound @PhysInHistory Interesting. I'm lost at the foundation of the particle – what drives/induces it, if you will. But yeah, I've noticed about distance. I haven't gotten around to frameworking it. Just one form, but it still uses some distance for ease of modeling. Sounds like you're much further.

There are only particles imo. "Waves" are nonlocal, probabilistic interactions that look like waves at the macroscopic level. Nature uses nonlocal "waves" to maintain an energy balance or equilibrium. Once you realize that distance doesn't exist physically, everything that didn't use to make sense, such as double-slit phenomena and quantum entanglement, can be explained logically. Even Newtonian gravity, which expects instantaneous actions at a distance, is perfectly possible. GR is not needed.

What is there in places empty of matter? ✍️

@TrueAIHound @PhysInHistory You seem like the type who'd have an idea on this. So, let's say a particle is a wave. What's there driving this thing? What's the foundation? (Is it accessible to us?)

My thesis is that space (distance, volume, area, etc.) are abstract creations of the mind. They don't exist physically. This is what nonlocality (quantum entanglement) really means. Only particles exist. Position is an intrinsic property of every particle. There is no place/position extrinsic to particles. Video game programmers should have no difficulty understanding that the position of an object is a property of the object.

@Jonas_Haraldson @TheRealVerbz @forallcurious I understand. You've raised the matter of alchemy never having worked, bar the recent accelerator experiment. So I'm pondering whether alchemy has failed more due to a lack of broader experiments in targeting matter other than gold or something less structured than diamonds.

@ron_personal @TheRealVerbz @forallcurious Well, the question is actually moot, since it was indeed claimed that water could be turned specifically into diamonds. Anyway, I think it's practically impossible to convert one stable element into another without a particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor.

Mind=BLOWN🚨: Scientists have now found all of the DNA and RNA bases in meteorites ....... This means there's a possibility that life on Earth came from space!

Do you remember why you joined X? #MyXAnniversary fml... I like this account more. It's like a semi-journal. My "professional" one is so cursed that it shows X must have lost the network effect (prior to acquisition). But I'm in a rough community... (Entrepreneurs... Oof...)

@thisguyjack @PhysInHistory I came to say shapeless, too. Where you write "void," do you mean to indicate, with the quotation marks, that you have a different idea of it? The question comes from the fact that I can't believe many think there's such a thing as emptiness. Interested in your thoughts on that.

Shapeless. A “void” filled with absolutely everything. Structure-less in its nebulous lack-of-structure. For Real. The universe is the shape of that egg in the frying-pan in that one famous TV-commercial from the 1980’s where the dude’s like “THIS is your brain on drugs!” And you hear Nancy Reagan laughing in the background.

What shape do you think the universe is? ✍️

@Hassellbladder @TheRealVerbz @forallcurious In that frame, it's true! Although, I'd say Earth may have a special thing to offer. The cell membrane seems to be an Earth thing. Hydrothermal vents and all. Not saying it can't happen elsewhere, but maybe not like this.

@TheRealVerbz @forallcurious Everything comes from space - we’re in space!!

@Jonas_Haraldson @TheRealVerbz @forallcurious What if it's due to everyone always trying to turn everything into gold and diamonds? I wonder whether anyone has tried water to carbon conversion.

@TheRealVerbz @forallcurious OK, fair enough. Proofreading is probably a good idea when using that process. Still, the bigger issue is how you turn water into carbon. As far as I can understand, that's in the realm of alchemy, which never actually worked.

@TakoTreba I bet! 😆 Especially 'cause it's AI-based. 🔥

@ron_personal alsooo scary

To all the people who were oh-so impressed by DeepSeek R1: I call it zeroday-impressed – when you allow yourself to be impressed before you even give yourself a chance to know about what you're impressed. Next time you're zeroday-impressed, maybe refrain from posting about it.

It's the end of text-dominant social platforms (I suppose voice-based and photography-based to some level, as well). AI accounts are doing the human thing fairly well now. But they produce negative value in user experience. This makes video-based platforms even more attractive.

@Anthony_Bonato Discovered within the bounds of our invented systems and tools.

Discovered or invented?

Trust the dinosaurs. Use base 60.

"Do it in 1 minute versus 16 hours and 40 minutes – roughly 2 regular business days' worth of work." (So specific in base 10...) x.com/sierracatalina…

This is why we should go back to base 60. So, activity over time should be counted in time-relative units. What's 100x one's agency? We don't know. We'd have to think about it. It might mean doing something in 1 minute, where one might do it in 1 hour and 40 minutes.

@Anthony_Bonato That is annoying, but these things aren't really invented, rather discovered. We can invent notation and stuff, but we're kind of locked into the finite space of the tools that we use and pass on to others.

Newton and Leibniz didn't invent Calculus. Tai did in 1994!

@lmldias @burkov I suppose so. People do tend to adapt by doing more of other things, as much as will fit into their time. You're right. I'd adapt to that timescale. (Although, hope everyone does get the sarcasm that was intended. I have a theory that LLMs tend to max out at ~90% accuracy.)

@ron_personal @burkov Yeah but my point is, you're not really "not working", you're still working. This reminds me of my own architecture work. People used to say "I wished computers would just do sections and such automatically". Well, now they do. I'm not "weighting lifts" while the PC does this.

Interesting to observe how more people gradually start to realize that everything they have been told about generative AI during the last 2 years by big tech and CEOs were lies. The last remaining straw for many is this "agentic" empty promise, but you can feed lies to the public for so long. Eventually, people will start asking for evidence and throwing rotten tomatoes.

@lmldias @burkov Well, why not? Without the technical aspect of the technical part, much of it is just in the head. (I'm a big fan of pen and paper, but that's in the planning phase.)

@ron_personal @burkov So you're actually not lifting weights at all, you're doing your job.

@lmldias @burkov I missed this. My bad. I'm [employed], because my companies don't have their own brains, and they need mine to plan and execute, and stuff. But there's an answer for the other scenario too: someone still needs to design, plan, validate, drive, execute, reshape, polish, etc.

@ron_personal @burkov If a model on a cluster does the coding for you, why are you even employed in the first place?

They need to do a #SouthPark episode about the whole DeepSeek R1 hype in the West...