Jack Egerton

Bit late to the party, koti -- check out the other comments, I would suggest. I have done all I can to explain myself to yourselves. Phi for All, thank you for attempting to add depth and context. I believe I have justified my opinions to the fullest and quite broadly, so shall not here, unless I see real reason to do so.

If I am lucky, this will be the last we need to say on this particular matter, but the reason I sound impassioned is because we all should be for our interests and pursuits. I was hoping for some genuine intellectual countering or input from people here. Maybe I have asked the wrong questions or asked them in the wrong way, but I seem to have exhausted my methods for doing so.... Oh, thank you. The very first thing I have learnt on this forum: the word hidebound. Yes, well, my above statement, sums up my opinion on the discussions we have held here, before having seen your response. It changes little. Seeing that you seemed to take offence to 'you folks'. I intended that because of how fundamentally differently we seem to think and view the world, which is partially interesting, partially bemusing. Responding to a criticism suggests no anticipation of future responses or where a discussion would lead so, no, I will respond to critics (be they human or NN bot) and the criticisms that come from them, the flow and progression of which will depend upon how said critic has responded in past and is therefore likely to respond in future.

Thank you, Phi for All, your opinion is noted. I suppose every challenge I have had on this whole forum amounts to either 'do not be condescending/patronising/arrogant' or 'you have not explained yourself fully'. So which would you prefer in this instance, as I went for the hand-holding explanation approach here -- as step-by-step as it is humanly possible to do so? Having your cake and eating it is not advised practice. To only take the contrary view is also very bot-like. Poker bots, for example, are taught to play tight (fewer hands) when the other player plays loose (more hands) and vice versa. Is this how you folks like to reason?

I wrote things as a logical progression as if they were being imagined from conception forwards. You 'incepted' the idea after I had stated in conceptually, which seemly less appealing or original to myself, but maybe more appealing to yourself. Certainly, a machine learning bot is capable of what you just did, however and so we go full circle... Maybe, though I am not sure about this, I like what I believe to be correct conclusions to be arrived at 'organically', rather than just chucking information down the throat of the recipient. Who knows?

No need to be sarcastic Strange. I did intend that to be part of what I stated.

I only agree with Strange if the desire of the person is to understand nature in the universe they live in and not to give thought to whether they live in a simulated universe, for example. The title of this thread was given to challenge the idea that a 'theory of everything' is a legitimate or possible thing to pursue, as everything can include a simulated universe within a universe. Essentially, we are both stating things that are not in logical disagreement (exclusivity), as I said previously. I highly doubt anything you could say would change my understanding of that, though I am keen to hear what you would suggest. I suppose you have said all you want to on the subject though -- I understand your position.

I do not have time to watch that video, but later yes, I may well. Thanks. Strange: your opinions on the matter seem fair, yet I stick to mine. Noting, that I have not had the time to consider whether any of your statements were both in contradiction with my own and also seem true -- as that would be required to falsify mine in my own mind. I agree that searching for a theory of everything is akin to a religious pursuit, yes.

The culture I stated. Not recent American culture. I am waiting to see words as clearly stated as I have written from any such people... please. Noting, that the idea of a simulated universe is as old as the hills. The logical conclusion that a theory of everything is a theory of nothing is what I want to see in writing from another source, please.

I have never read anything written or said by either of those people on any such subject. So you guess incorrectly. Nor do I know whether they have talked about anything similar. If you provided a citation of them saying words to the effect of what I have said, I would be interested to see whether it compares.

swansont: I did not mention a situation in which one does not understand the whole universe in which they exist and I shall not, for it is not relevant to the scenario I proposed: a universe in which someone understood fully the laws describing nature in the universe in which they exist. Practical limitations such as data storage are limitations not preventions and so are also not relevant to imaging whether something is 'not impossible' as I stated. When I say limitation I mean they reduce the probability of something being possible and when I say prevention I mean that possibility is zero percent. A limitation can never become a prevention via that definition.

Loads of things in culture etc. You could say that The Matrix, preceded by Ghost In Shell, preceded by Solipsism, preceded by belief in a Creator, preceded by the ability to think inspired me. I am being facetious by missing out a few links in that infinite chain.

I am glad you comprehended what I said, unless you missed that 'not a theory of anything' is the same as 'a theory of nothing', that you may well see in the title of this thread

If one manages to fully comprehend how nature behaves, then consequently one can imagine a simulated universe, and therefore knows a simulated universe is not impossible. When a simulated universe is not impossible, one cannot know whether one exists in a simulated universe. In a simulated universe, any physical laws are possible by those who created that universe. Therefore, because one does not know if they are in a simulated universe, upon discovering or describing all physical laws of that universe in which they exist, one truly knows no physical laws of the real universe. Thus, I propose the following theory of everything that describes the physical laws of the real universe: 0 = 0 One can consider this equivalent to stating that Solipsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) is the only way to truly understand the universe.

I can tell you where my mind went since I last posted that reply -- and yes, it relates to the cosmos I defined -- a smart question would be: why would a person that hits the floor after freefall not pass through the floor (or distance from Earth at which they were born) in the Egertonian force-free model? This could be because the particles do pass through the floor but the information about which particles constituted the person is somehow jumbled but not entirely lost (entropy advancement) in a form of imprint of the localised disturbance caused by said particles. This seems to be in agreement with Information Theory that Hawking used in his conceptualisation of Hawking radiation. swansont: that does help, agreed. p.s. though 'disturbance' implies force, so my thought process has not quite straightened that all out yet, evidently. The rest of the description remains valid but not fully explained. p.p.s. last known location of particles could be last bit of Information pertaining to said particles -- no 'disturbance' required then. Then differing velocity (maybe differing kinetic energy, if energy were required in the model) is equivalent to different information known about the particles, perhaps, though that is implied above.

Lasse, if you have every heard a sky diver or some such person say, "the ground was coming up on me pretty fast", or something like that. Or, the apple that fell on Newton's head could say, "that head was coming up on me pretty fast". What would you say to that (besides crude wordplay)? The frame of reference of the person, e.g. in a Solipsistic universe, sees the ground moving towards it in freefall on Earth. The above would be a reason for thinking, on a base level, that my Hypothesis was intuitive and logical. (Conversely, if someone said, intuitively, "the Earth is flat", I would say "not true, one can see ships sailing over the horizon" or provide another such example for base intuition.) Beyond base intuition, the simplicity and seeming generality of the Egertonian cosmos is hard to fault and I have said that it could readily provide the same results as from relativistic equations and other mathematical descriptions of empirical observations of nature.

Clarification would only be repeat at this stage and therefore unfruitful in its entirety.

I have done so. Read the thread, please. Thank you for reflecting questions back at me, though, Lasse.

Though I will happily talk with myself through the medium of written English. This is known as a mind dump. Anyway, my opinion on the language of mathematics is this: it is multilayered, i.e. a latin/greek/etc character encodes some logic, then another character encodes logic on that logic, etc. So it is seen as efficient, yet implicit. So maths seems superficially to be a good candidate for encode rich logic. However, there is one major risk I can see associated with this, compared with textual logic: the layer-upon-layer-upon-layer logical structure can lead to confusion over the exact initial meaning of the base layer, akin to the old English game called 'Chinese whispers' -- though I am not sure of the origin of that name. We can also analyse maths through propagation of error that I will do in words, not maths, so as to not be circular in my reasoning. If there is a small error in encoding or decoding of knowledge on one layer, and then that knowledge is used to encode the next layer, potentially with its own associated error, and then decoded, maybe with further error, then the error magnifies to the point of distorting the intended meaning of the logic. Another second issue that can occur, and does occur for example when one provides a proper noun to one layer of knowledge, e.g. Einsteinian, is that one may forget some or all of the limitations of such a theory and apply it more generally than it should be or was originally intended to be. Again, such super-generalisation of knowledge magnifies with layers such that such use of said knowledge is close to meaningless on a logical level. There are obviously other reasons to be VERY careful when encoding and decoding logic and understanding in mathematics, else it becomes something taken on FAITH not COMPREHENSION. I do not state or imply here that there are issues with faith per se, but I state that maths is suggested and intended to be comprehension-based not faith-based and to take any encoded logic on faith is to do a disservice to the very meaning of SCIENCE. By writing this reply I will state that Strange's reply is not worthy of any further reply.

The thing is, if you write a full stop after every logical conclusion before writing the next then you do not get anywhere. Written language inherently cannot be 100% explicit, because there is human or machine learning of implication behind each word and the construction of the sentence. So... when you ask me the above questions, you seem to seek a sentence format greater than 99% explicit and less than 1% implicit. The problem is, that is not how the English language, or any other textual language works. The same is true for mathematics. We use mathematics to encode logic and logic can always be stated in written language, else it is illogical. Therefore, maths or English or any language necessarily has implicit knowledge or 'unsaid things' in it. I find it near impossible to discuss when there is nothing assumed from what a person has said, and not much desired to extend thought beyond the exact words that were stated by said person. Hence, I am not motivated to answer those questions. The aim of starting this thread was to spark up an interesting conversation with seemingly intelligent people to see what is discussed. I am yet to see the development of such.

If you compartmentalise (Aristotelian) science away from other elements of human behaviour, with barriers, then you suggest science is in need of defence, when, in fact, no assault may necessarily have been launched upon it. Let us use compartments in this case. So... science is a thing in and of itself that is blameless and unaccountable. Maybe this is OK, because science is not a person or people it is a compartment of human behaviour that we have just defined. How about people working in science? If science is suggested to be a means for achieve good or ill then how about those who create/popularise/disseminate science? We have carrots: acclaim/renown/respect/accrediation and physical or digital credit such as money, and other things We have sticks: moral obligations, legal obligations, etc Are these balance in favour or out of favour of people working in science? How important is the intended use of the science and technology to any obligations or rewards, etc? Etc... I am just ad-libing with my fingers here, so there must be more to consider.

I honestly didn't grasp what he was on about then. Might see 1 of his comments again later though <-- see, I didn't grasp it.

dimreepr: confusing/confused responses have not yet been categorised but I would deem that a 'type C' for evaluation -- before -- I had used the word evaluation. But since it had entered into play, I would reckon that was a 'type B/C'. Is that what you meant? I did not entirely follow your response. Strange: that cleverbot responded thus: What is the smartest response you cannot think of? I don't know master. That is 'type B/C' so getting there. And then a false/null response for this: What do you like about Fermat's principle? You are beautiful with a great personality. Well, anyway, you may evaluate other responses on this thread, and maybe throughout the forum, to see where you get with it. Can be fun; can be frustrating.

Ha Strange, I believe, while those responses were intended to be sarcastic, they would be 'type A'. You are in the clear from other responses dimreepr: that may be a 'type A/B' response, so yes the Turing test could prove you are human (or not??) but may struggle with 'type C'. n.b. you see the examples of 'type C' responses I have provided have evaluation and cognition that may be reproduced with a machine, but maybe not. Play on...

Hi all I have been wondering what proportion of accounts on this forum are linguistic bots that learn from language patterns such as with artificial neural networks or other machine learning techniques? I have seen what we could call 'type A' many times: they database search keywords and respond with a generic pseudo-textual output in relation to the query. Maybe, 'type B' actually applies language pattern learning to respond suitably. 'type C' -- is this where life-like synthetic cognition (AI) comes in? Who here has seen similar or maybe written similar? How would a bot respond to these queries? How would a bot learn from these queries?

I have handled my fair share of peer review -- thanks for being human To swansont: do as you have power and desire to do. I cannot think fast enough to reply to many queries at once. I would think this thread is best left open to return to at future, but it is not my place to say otherwise.