Genady

They are moving. They don't send any transmission. They only receive the transmission from Earth.

There is no FTL transmission from a small moving object in my scenario. Only from the Earth.

The string theory is one of better known such attempts. These mathematical singularities make it impossible to analyze physics near the center of BH and at the very early stages on the universe. Anything that gets close to Planck scale.

In his scenario, yes, the FTL transmission goes from STL ship to Earth. But this is not necessary. The paradox can be demonstrated also without such transmission. Instead, assume that there is a "train" of STL ships with synchronized clocks between all the "cars" (ships.) The "conductor" of the train made an arrangement that whatever ship passes the Earth at 9h, blows off the FTL transmitter on Earth. To be specific, let's say that the train moves with 3/5 speed of light. This speed makes a relativistic time dilation factor equal 5/4. At 9:45h on the Earth clock, the transmitter sends a FTL signal to the train engine. Let's say it arrives to the engine at 10h on the Earth clock. Because of the time dilation, it is 10*4/5=8h on the train clock. At 9h on the train clock, i.e., one hour later, a car that passes the Earth blows off the transmitter. Because of the time dilation, it is 9*4/5=7h on the Earth clock. The transmitter gets blown off before a transmission is sent (before 9:45h on the Earth clock). But the engine already has received a transmission. It received a transmission that has never been sent. This violates causality.

There are many phenomena moving with any arbitrary speed. They all can't carry energy or information.

One needs to take in account a teacher/student relative weight.

In principle, anything that has energy-momentum affects the curvature. Practically, a few million particles will not have a measurable effect. They are all fields, i.e., machines that get spacetime coordinates in and produce a scalar / spinor / vector / tensor out. They all have Lagrangians and obey stationary action principle. But gravity does not appear in interaction terms of Lagrangians the way other fields do. Thus, it is entirely distinct. (These are short preliminary answers. Markus will reply with much more depth, I expect.) No. All charged particles interact with EM (photon) field, but neutral particles don't. Quarks and gluons interact with gluons. All particles interact weakly. All massive particles interact with Higgs (not sure about neutrinos.) Seems, there are more interactions than fields.

4:1

Their interactions are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangians. They operate in the curved spacetime. A particle and its anti-particle are excitations of the same field. No.

I am not sure about the particles. Take electron neutrino and electron anti-neutrino, for example. They have the same 1), 2), and 3), but they are different particles.

I don't know.

My context is my life experience. AI's context is human library of texts and visual and auditory images.

Concepts are building blocks of thoughts. In fMRI studies, the difference between concepts and their visual representations manifests itself, for example, in areas of brain which are engaged when a task requires thinking of something vs. when a task requires imagining that something. In the latter, the same areas are engaged as in the former PLUS primary sensory or motor areas. Presumably, engaging these primary areas is what makes the images specific.

In addition to the above, there is usually logarithmic relation between a stimulus and our perception of it, aka Weber–Fechner law (Weber–Fechner law - Wikipedia). See example here: Logarithmic Time Perception - Exponential/Logarithmic Functions (weebly.com)

I'm uncertain about why. Because you do not comment on how AI works anymore. No, it's about how context limits understanding. Context limits understanding. What is there to discuss?

No, we are not. It has nothing to do with the topic of what context AI has.

I guess you are not interested anymore in figuring out how AI works. This is OK.

Yes, interpretation of QM is about how its math relates to reality. The cat example shows that that specific interpretation does not relate very well. So, use another interpretation which does a better job. They exist. In any case, it is not about reality but only about how to interpret QM without getting absurd results.

No, the cat example is about interpretation of QM.

Typo. Fixed. HUP, Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We are not talking about lions now. But about how AI is different from human brain.

The cat example is not about HUP. It is about quantum superposition of states, which is a separate QM principle.

You mean, HUP? It works in computers exactly the same way it works in neurons. There is no way around it. It is an underlying physical principle of everything.

In what way? Is this difference what makes human brain different from AI? What uncertainty? What it has to do with anything?

If you look inside the human brain, you find neurons firing pulses which are not very different from 01 etc. This by itself does not indicate if there is or there is not understanding. I have no doubt that AI does not understand anything in the human sense of the word, but this is not because of 01 etc.

Maybe in Sci-fi, but not in the current AI.