kbrkbr

That does not seem to be true.

Either the next tokens can include "this question can't be answered", "I don't know" and the likes, in which case there is no omniscience.

Or the next tokens must contain answers that do not go on the meta level, but only pick one of the potential direct answers to a question. Then the halting problem will prevent finite time omniscience (which is, from the perspective of finite beings all omniscience).

What would you like to call psychology instead?

That in turn sounds a lot like the latin locative case [1], which was a case next to dative, accusative etc. to indicate place.

[1] https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program...

> and five fingers per hand

In my experience it's more like three to six. But your argument's still valid. There is a concept

> which is to say, in a manner that Godel expressed far more clearly, that all logical systems, all systematic programs, contain elements that cannot be contained in the system

Wikipedia [1] summarizes better than I could:

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

That's seems a bit different than what you stated, to me at least.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2527s_incompleten...

I already made one-time payments (aka "lifetime") for two softwares/services. Was great until the providers went out of business. Before that they treated me not so well in support. But, what should I do, end the contract? Now I have the strict rule for myself not to use any kind of one-time payment options in this area (software/software based services) anymore. I'm just putting this down here to shed light on the possible downsides.

Edit: now I realize this is not written clear enough. This rule applies to software/software based services I intend to use regularly to solve a specific problem, like office, storage, etc.

Microsoft offers Python for Excel for quite some time now [1]. Seems like a natural fit, when you are used to working in spreadsheets and want to add the low code machine learning capabilities that Python offers.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/python-in-exce...

But isn't it the beauty of llm's that they need comparably little preparation (unstructured text as input) and pick the features on their own so to say?

edit: grammar

I use random forests as a first model for basically everything classification or regression.

This looks incredibly useful for understanding samples of individual trees, for which I use the nice but limited inbuilt tree object in sklearn.

Thank you!

Look at any cloud provider except Microsoft. I remember three breaches where hackers got to the control plane relatively easily in the last years alone.

Some examples:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/3/23819237/microsoft-azure-b...

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861890/microsoft-azure-d...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-warns-azure-cus...

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-st...

But couldn't you agree on a code in advance that does not rely on the content transmitted, but on the number of entangled particles for which the collapse takes place?

Thanks for your reply!

I am not argumenting against curing stuff and prolonging life.

I just think it is not immortality.

I don't think immortality is to have given our current knowledge.

It's like saying: "and then we build the perpetuum mobile. We're just short of it. One or two more breakthroughs".

I like ambition, I just don't think we even have a trace of a path

I did, too. And it haunted me until my fourties.

And still I'm fine with it today.

For now it looks like death can't be "solved" at all. You may be able to prolong individual human life, even by a lot. But how to solve entropy and the end of an empty, cold universe?

There is even speculation that life is from a certain angle only an effect to accelerate entropy under the umbrella of the Maximum Entropy Production Principle (but I do not remember the source).

So from the standpoint of current knowledge of how nature works this seems to look dire.

I also personally disagree. I do not think that the beautiful chaos of life is strictly preferable to the requiem eternam of death. I'll go when I have to, without hesitation and regrets. It's not the things that terrify us, but our opinion of the things.

I appreciate your comment and share the sentiment. Yet I think about temporarily reducing the amount of stock in my portfolio, since one of the historic recession indicators is in pre-recession territory for quite some time [1]. In any case, recessions must not go hand in hand with a bear market, and even if so, we don't know how deep it will go and for how long.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y Click on "Max". Observe recessions in grey.

The background of my question is, that China is around for a long time, sometimes technically advanced, sometimes not. It is still around today. It does not seem to fit into your scheme.

How does China fit in that scheme [1]?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

What about this conclusion then:

It's absurd to believe quantum physics can in any way be the right theory of the world at a small scale.

Why?

> There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take place without breaking causality.

Indefinite causal structures show up quantum theory [1].

All hinges on what is meant by the opaque "breaking causality".

[1] e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2930

One side effect would probably be, that anti-science rulers would turn this into a weapon against unliked scientific results. Think vaccines. The Damocles sword of endless litigation would hang over every scientific research concerning public policy.

Maybe it's overall better to let science sort out science things.

Funny, how the cv's sent over by the lawyer actually seem to corroborate the story.

I imagine two guys unaware of Osint sticking their heads together: "let's just lie. No way this guy can ever find out!"

But then again, that's just my mean imagination. Let's see how it is settled in the end.

> There just has been EU election in germany and the nationalist gained a lot.

That really depends on your point of comparison. Compared to their 22% high in February, they lost a lot with 16% actual votes (more than 25% down). 84% voted something else.

https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/europawahl-2024-sonnt...

Research indicates that reality is more complex and messy than that.

https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog...

It seems more likely that a theory that bases being an intentional agent on the notion of an inner monologue is not the best model for what's happening.

Speaking about this topic is already hard. It's not like the words needed can be learned in observing the world. There is a lot of reflection going on to sharpen their meaning to the nuance that's needed for serious discussion.

Conscious, self-aware, sentient, thinking, to name just a few, mean quite different things - not only in themselves, but also per philosophical school of thinking their connections and subdivisions are different.

Plenty of room for misunderstanding...

I think it was Augustinus who said about time "when no one asks me I know what it means". And then went on a journey to try to understand what it is that he knows.

That is a very narrow definition of better it seems.

Yeah, that makes sense! Thanks for pointing out

> You’re about 90% sure you know how to start the app. You’re 80% sure you know how to handle the infra you’ll need to get it online. And you’re 70% sure you know how to get your first customer. What is your chance of successfully going from zero to first customer? 0.9 * 0.8 * 0.7 = a little over 0.5.

This would be true if the probabilities were independent [1], which they are probably not, as the infra is tied to the app.

The probability can be anything from 40% to 70%. You can see that if you arrange 3 rectangles inside a unit square, one with 90% of the size, one with 80%, one with 70%. If they contain each other, their overlap is 70% of the whole, namely the smallest rectangle. In the worst case it is 40%, when the 80% is 10% out of 90%, giving 70% overlap. And then 70% is 30% out of that overlap, leaving 40%.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_th...

A normal distribution goes to infinity in both directions. Moving the center will not change that.

Same here still

Thank you for taking the time to reply to a rando fellow nerd. Really appreciated!

Can't wait for the study with duct tape in conjunction with wd40. This is nerdy stuff :D