Discussion:
The puzzle science is solving
(too old to reply)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 07:10:30 UTC
Permalink
It is not "how things really are". It
is "which word sequences are good ones".
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
Python
2024-10-28 10:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are". It
is "which word sequences are good ones".
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
You may be interested by Jean-Louis Krivine's work, he's a logician and is
proposing a foundation for maths and physics based on an idea that /could/
be expressed as such (who knows what your ideas are, but anyway...)

https://www.irif.fr/~krivine/

His last book for the general public was recently published : "Les
décompilateurs". AFAIK not translated into any langage yet.
gharnagel
2024-10-28 12:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
So, yes, it IS an optimization problem
because it is an ongoing process of devising
better maps.

Some maps are bad right out of the gate, some
maps are good, some maps are better.

Unintelligent humans build bad maps, as
demonstrated by many posters to this
discussion group.
Python
2024-10-28 14:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of the
programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for
instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct (because
evolution made sur they do) I agree with the original sentence.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 15:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of
the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for
instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries The Shit will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Python
2024-10-28 16:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of
the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for
instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they
are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language"
in your brains.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well with
this line of thinking. As well as QM. Krivine addresses this in is book
and articles with specific words on SR and QM in addition to NM.

BTW, SR is not a "theory of anything", neither is GR. QM in a way is, or
claim to have such a goal, but, IMHO QM could be more a theory of
information (or a blueprint of one) than a physical theory.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 17:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they
are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language"
in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful. And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries  [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism. At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Python
2024-10-28 20:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they
are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language"
in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as
"decompiled" by humans from their own introspection.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Sure. Krivine makes fun of physicists looking for the "theory
of everything" or "the language of God".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries  [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
I do think so too. But I'm marxist :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.

You seem to have decided at some point in your life that everyone
on Earth were producing non-sense except you (even if you've, afaik,
never published anything). You look much like Dr. Hachel/Lengrand
on this matter.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 21:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Introspection? Of - what? Apart of a human brain
nothing deals with words, neither mathematical
way nor any other way.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Sure. Krivine makes fun of physicists looking for the "theory
of everything" or "the language of God".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries  [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
I do think so too. But I'm marxist :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
That's how the DK effect works.
Post by Python
You seem to have decided at some point in your life that everyone
on Earth were producing non-sense except you
What you're projecting at me is exactly what The
Shit has taught yourself and your fellow idiots.

But, no, the followers of The Shit are no way
"everyone except me".
Python
2024-10-28 21:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Introspection? Of - what? Apart of a human brain
nothing deals with words, neither mathematical
way nor any other way.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Sure. Krivine makes fun of physicists looking for the "theory
of everything" or "the language of God".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries  [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
I do think so too. But I'm marxist :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell are
you talking about ?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's how the DK effect works.
Post by Python
You seem to have decided at some point in your life that everyone
on Earth were producing non-sense except you
What you're projecting at me is exactly what The
Shit has taught yourself and your fellow idiots.
So Humanity is a plot against Maciej Wozniak ? LOL!!!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But, no, the followers of The Shit are no way
"everyone except me".
Oh ! Name a few that follows your views on SR (and the rest of Physics) ?
Name one.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 06:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you and your fellow
idiots mad.
Post by Python
So Humanity is a plot against Maciej Wozniak ? LOL!!!
The Church of The Shit is not Humanity, it's just
a small and insignificant part of it.
Python
2024-10-29 13:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" are not very impressive
Maciej.

"everythibg about everything" LOL.
Python
2024-10-29 13:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Maciej.

"everythibg about everything" LOL.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 15:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still - none of your idiot gurus had any
real knowledge about the process.
Python
2024-10-29 15:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 16:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none  of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Python
2024-10-29 19:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none  of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.

I was kind enough to point you to some works that may be in your line of
reasoning, if ever you had one.

You don't care, you won't check, you'll continue to post stupid rants
every single early morning on Usenet until you'll die. With zero effect
but boring people.

This is your project in life. I wonder how it is possible to act that way.
But I don't really care.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 21:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none  of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together"  a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
Listen, Python: it's really funny when
such a piece of abusive shit is talking
about some "abusive conduct" of others.
Post by Python
I was kind enough to
to slander about my alleged bottles of vodka
and nurses allegedly changing my shitty
sheets.

Nothing surprising, sure, that's what your
shitty church is traininhg poor stinkers
like you for.

Changes nothing. Your church is not becoming
"Humanity" just because its worshippers are
saying so; the mumble of your idiot guru
remains not even consistent, and nobody
of you knows anything about what you're
doing, how you're doing it and how it
should be done.
Python
2024-10-31 20:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none  of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
I was kind enough to point you to some works that may be in your line of
reasoning, if ever you had one.
You don't care, you won't check, you'll continue to post stupid rants every
single early morning on Usenet until you'll die. With zero effect but boring
people.
This is your project in life. I wonder how it is possible to act that way. But I
don't really care.
Now reaction. How come? :-)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-31 21:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing  but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately  prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What
the Hell are you talking about ?
"But none  of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
none  of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together"  a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
I was kind enough to point you to some works that may be in your line
of reasoning, if ever you had one.
You don't care, you won't check, you'll continue to post stupid rants
every single early morning on Usenet until you'll die. With zero
effect but boring people.
This is your project in life. I wonder how it is possible to act that
way. But I don't really care.
Now reaction. How come? :-)
I've told you already, poor stinker.

Python
2024-10-28 21:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Introspection? Of - what? Apart of a human brain
nothing deals with words, neither mathematical
way nor any other way.
Ok, you didn't get it and never will.

I wasn't expecting better by the way :-)
Python
2024-10-28 22:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
A question Wozniak: have you *ever once* cared the views of anyone else
but *you*?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 06:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
A question Wozniak: have you *ever once* cared the views of anyone else
but *you*?
Yes. Many times. Usually.
The Starmaker
2024-10-28 15:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
You are saying..

they created a world of fake science. Physics is fake.

It's an invention by people who call themselves...scientists.

A sort of a distraction from the...real world.


A space hobby.


That explains why everyone here are wearing ...spacetime watches!


Look at your spacetime watch..

the time slows down the faster you run!


"What time do you have?" "It's relative!"


Where I'm at, my watch reads...right now.


It's right now no matter where I'm at in the universe!


I'm never late. I'm always on time.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 15:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
So, yes, it IS an optimization problem
It is.
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
Post by gharnagel
Unintelligent humans build bad maps, as
demonstrated by many posters to this
discussion group.
It absolutely is. Even worse, as they are
too stupid to discuss - they're just spitting
and slandering their opposition, just like you.
gharnagel
2024-10-28 17:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!) Wozniak goes nuts again!

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map

a plan, a portrayal.

plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"

Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning. Perhaps in
addition to addiction, dishonesty and coprophilia
he has autism, too.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
So, yes, it IS an optimization problem
It is.
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
There is no such thing as "exact science." The
degree of certainty increases when going from
hypotheses to theories to laws. Even laws aren't
certain:

"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be
the truth." -- Richard Feynman
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Unintelligent humans build bad maps, as
demonstrated by many posters to this
discussion group.
It absolutely is. Even worse, as they are
too stupid to discuss -
Wozniak doesn't even realize he's describing
himself. He NEVER discusses: he pontificates.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
they're just spitting and slandering their
opposition, just like you.
Wozniak has no clue whether anyone is spitting
while typing a response to his addled posts,
and no one is "slandering" because:

slander: the action or crime of making a false
SPOKEN statement damaging to a person's reputation"

and for two reasons: anything said here is written,
not spoken and Wozniak has no reputation to
damage.

Wozniak is like the pathological liar:

"Pathological liars often lie to manipulate and
control others, creating intricate stories that
may even deceive themselves."

https://tagvault.org/blog/pathological-liar-vs-compulsive-liar-vs-congenital-liar/

And he doesn't seem to realize that he is doing
exactly what he denounces in others, nor does he
realize that HE is a builder of bad maps :-)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 17:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!)  Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
There is no such thing as "exact science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
gharnagel
2024-10-29 12:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!)  Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Since "plan" is in the range of words for "map"
and a plan is more than a drawing, Wozniak isn't
making any sense, as usual.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
There is no such thing as "exact science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
Wozniak is conflating "exact" as an adjective
with "exact_science" as a noun, which describes
a branch of science which doesn't mean that its
results are in any way absolutely "perfect" or
"true" which was how Wozniak was using the word
and I went along with it.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/exact

His link was merely an attempt to conflate the
meaning of words to foment an argument.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 12:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!)  Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for  "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Since "plan" is in the range of words for "map"
and a plan is more than a drawing, Wozniak isn't
making any sense, as usual.
Harnagel's "logic" sucks, as usual.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
Wozniak is conflating "exact" as an adjective
with "exact_science" as a noun
No, Harnagel is lying, as usual.
gharnagel
2024-10-29 12:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for  "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Since "plan" is in the range of words for "map"
and a plan is more than a drawing, Wozniak isn't
making any sense, as usual.
Harnagel's "logic" sucks, as usual.
Says the illogical nut who denies information while
calling himself an "information engineer" :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
Wozniak is conflating "exact" as an adjective
with "exact_science" as a noun
No, Harnagel is lying, as usual.
Says Wozniak the congenital, pathological liar :-))

He's "crafty and mean. But not creative, not truly
intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Loading...