Re: XhatGPT; How many physicists accept GR?

On 11/15/2024 08:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 16-Nov-24 9:52 am, rhertz wrote:

ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).
>
>

>
You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
>
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
>
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.
>
Sylvia.
>
>

It's non-commital and more-or-less waffling, "It", an,
"ecosystem of message-passing agents in an ecosystem
of a large-language-model", usual sorts of the "robo-nanny"
offering, yet, given specific enough inputs, it is possible
to see it demonstrate what would be very thorough and
consistent reasoning. ("Aiallme's".)
You mention "GIGO" the plain principle of software widely,
that "garbage-in garbage-out" is that if you get garbage-out
then perhaps it's, ..., garbage-in, or, "garbled-age", as it were.
That said the academic discourse of course has principles,
and it makes for a praxis, and we have a science, and we
have all the data, so whether or not it's a 300 MPH wheel-chair,
has that what it is is what it is.
People want to learn philosophy and theory,
then it's like "well you have to study Kant,
he was considered the best". Then it's like,
"well what's his point?", and there's, "well,
he's got that there's in a thing in itself, and
there's a thing bigger than itself". "Well that
doesn't seem according to those words ..."
and it's like "yeah some people don't get it".
It's fair to say for some people "there's no
infinity", and that's sane, "logically consistent",
yet, it's also small. It's finger counting, and
anybody can do it, and it's sane, and it's small.
Then, we know since ancient times that there's
either Archimedean "infinitely-many and no
infinitely-grand", and that's sane, and then
there's Democritus, "infinitely-small and
makes one whole", that's sane, and then
there's Euclid, "it's axiomatized if necessary
between any two points is a shortest, straightest
line", that's sane.
Then it's like, "well I put together Euclid and
Democritus and Archimedes, now there's
infinitely-grand to be infinitely-small",
then it's like "well, now you see how Kant
is stood up as a great philosopher".
Then it's like "you point at Duns Scotus,
he read enough Aristotle to put together
Aristotle on Archimedes and Democritus
and Euclid because of Zeno, so, infinity is
in".
How can that all be sane? Well, it's simple,
it's called "resolving the paradoxes of logic",
and it involves a dialectic from either side
of "so" and "not so", "finite and infinite",
why there's a theory and philosophy at
all, that's sane.
Then, for people who haven't gone through
all that, then it's like, "well, there's Kant",
"according to Kant's idealism there's a sane
infinity even if it's non-standard". I.e. they
lean on that in case not having all together
made a theory for themselves from the axiomless
natural deduction how it's arrived at.
Then there's that, and it's like, "well how's that",
then it's like, "well, you see there's Hegel, and,
he refers to Kant, then points out there's nothing,
then he gives it a proper name, Nothing, and
then it's a reflection on points and their spaces of
geometry as continuous and infinite and words
and their spaces of algebra as finite and discrete
and then that's enough sane for pretty much all of it".
"Circular movement is eternal." -- Aristotle
"There is no un-moved mover." -- Aristotle
"Worlds turn."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B48lBnxy_Gk&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=52
"Moment and Motion:  geometry is motion"