1
New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?
« on: Today at 02:04:01 »Good textbooks give you equations that predict what you actually observe.Have you found a good textbook that correctly predicted non-diffractive edge?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Good textbooks give you equations that predict what you actually observe.Have you found a good textbook that correctly predicted non-diffractive edge?
Most people are ignorant about almost everything, and there's a lot of rubbish on the internet. Thanks to AI, there's an infinite amount of recycled rubbish too. But there's a lot of knowledge and understanding in good science textbooks.Shallow AI can't distinguish between good and bad data. Just like little children can't do the same.
What is a goal?You failed to find the universal terminal goal because you failed to define goal in the first place.Whatever goal I might choose, be sure that no pathogen, predator or antisemite would share it.
The questions listed above are some of the most important unsolved problems known to humanity, which have long been overdue.
Perhaps not many people are willing to spend their precious time trying to solve them. It might be caused by mediocre mindset. They think if they can solve those problems, someone else smarter than them who are more familiar with the problems must have solved them first, so why bother? Thus, solving those problems requires us to first overcome that mediocre mindset barrier. Only then we are willing to spend our time and effort to look for the solutions.
Some other people are not interested in the problems because they don't think that they have direct impact to their lives, so they just do their business as usual. Those thoughts must have reduced the number of potential solvers.
Courage is knowing what not to fear.
Plato
We get a nice full wave when the imaginary part is exactly 2*pi
Religious fictionalists argue that religion is false, but we should continue to use religious discourse and engage in religious practices. Religion is a useful fiction. This video outlines the motivation for religious fictionalism and then discusses some of the objections that have been raised against it.
The difference is whether they are done systemically, which makes the impacts more widespread than personal crimes.We submit that these crimes could not have been committed without their actions.I hope this is a mistranslation and not a deliberate error. Obviously any or all of these crimes could have been committed by anyone, on the instigation of anyone else, but would they?
You don't seem to distinguish between tax and tuition.They are expressing concern of where their money goes to.Currently: subsidising incompetently-run railways, subsidising inefficient wind farms, bailing out incompetent bankers, contributing to the profits of a post office that first extorts from and then prosecutes its employees without evidence, direct payments to the profits of foreign-owned water companies that pollute the rivers and sea, excessive salaries to managers employed to privatise the National Health Service, compensation to ferry companies with no ships for being excluded from transport tenders, payments to relatives of ministers for Covid-related scams, Amazon and Google who don't pay tax on their UK operations....Next: paying inadequate and belated compensation to the victims of crooked US suppliers of infected blood products and their UK stooges.....
AFAIK most UK citizens make no contribution to Israel other than by buying fruit, and I see no protests about the treatment of Catalonian separatists by Spanish fruit-growers. Individuals who do contribute to Israel are, of course, mainly Jews, and you won't find many of us in these juvenile hate camps.
Students who object to their university having relations with Israel, Gaza, Russia, the USA, Cecil Rhodes, or whatever, are free to leave and take their money with them. They never do.
We can see a switch of slope from pi to pi/2.Let's find out where the precise location of the switching.
For any extraordinary non-trivial zeta zero which would violate Riemann's Hypothesis, S function should yield zero for both the real and imaginary part. So now let's explore the imaginary part, from 2 pi i down to 0i.We get a nice full wave when the imaginary part is exactly 2*pihttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28zeta%28x%2B+2+pi+i%29+%2F%28Zeta%281-x%2B+2+pi+i%29%29%29%29from+0+to+1
The same curve looks like an inflection when zoomed out.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28zeta%28x%2B+2+pi+i%29+%2F%28Zeta%281-x%2B+2+pi+i%29%29%29%29from+-10+to+11
A more accurate inflection curve has a slightly bigger imaginary number.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28zeta%28x%2B+2.002117+pi+i%29+%2F%28Zeta%281-x%2B+2.002117+pi+i%29%29%29%29from+0.495+to+0.505
What's the similarities and differences between morality and economics
Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein delivers a word salad on how the Fed works.It's dangerous to let misinformed people affect decisions that would have significant impacts on larger society.
None of which can be universal. Very few species have a hive intellect, and life is essentially competitive.You failed to find the universal terminal goal because you failed to define goal in the first place.
After watching a video about elliptic curve, I suspected that trivial zeros of Zeta function must somehow be related to non-trivial zeros. This video shows how they are related.The video shows that non-trivial zeros of Riemann's Zeta function must somehow be correlated to its trivial zeros. I think it's worth exploring if other points on the critical line are also correlated to points on the real line through some sort of mapping or projection.
The concept of a "universal terminal goal" refers to an ultimate objective or end state that all rational agents would inherently pursue, regardless of their specific preferences, values, or circumstances. This idea is often discussed in the context of artificial intelligence, philosophy, and ethical theory. However, there is significant debate about whether such a universal terminal goal exists, and if so, what it might be.
Several candidates for a universal terminal goal have been proposed:
1. **Survival and Self-Preservation**: It is argued that any rational agent would inherently seek to ensure its own continued existence and ability to act. Without survival, no other goals can be pursued.
2. **Maximizing Happiness or Well-Being**: Some philosophical theories, such as utilitarianism, suggest that the ultimate goal could be to maximize overall happiness or well-being.
3. **Knowledge and Understanding**: Another possibility is that rational agents might universally seek to maximize their understanding and knowledge of the universe, as greater knowledge can potentially help achieve other goals.
4. **Fulfillment of Preferences**: Some theories posit that rational agents would aim to fulfill their own preferences or desires, whatever those may be.
5. **Alignment with Moral or Ethical Principles**: There is also the notion that rational agents might aim to align with certain moral or ethical principles that are considered universal, such as fairness, justice, or altruism.
In artificial intelligence, the idea of a universal terminal goal is particularly relevant in the design of safe and beneficial AI systems. Ensuring that AI systems have goals aligned with human values is a major area of research, often referred to as the alignment problem.
In conclusion, while the idea of a universal terminal goal is intriguing, it remains a topic of considerable debate and speculation, with no consensus on whether such a goal exists or what it would be.
So what's the furthest observed universe now, if its not the edge?If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?
It basically is.
Decisions in court of law are determined by the terminal goal set to their creation in the first place.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (?Hamas?) in the Gaza Strip), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI, more commonly known as DEIF (Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 7 October 2023:
Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
My Office submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that SINWAR, DEIF and HANIYEH are criminally responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians in attacks perpetrated by Hamas (in particular its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades) and other armed groups on 7 October 2023 and the taking of at least 245 hostages. As part of our investigations, my Office has interviewed victims and survivors, including former hostages and eyewitnesses from six major attack locations: Kfar Aza; Holit; the location of the Supernova Music Festival; Be?eri; Nir Oz; and Nahal Oz. The investigation also relies on evidence such as CCTV footage, authenticated audio, photo and video material, statements by Hamas members including the alleged perpetrators named above, and expert evidence.
It is the view of my Office that these individuals planned and instigated the commission of crimes on 7 October 2023, and have through their own actions, including personal visits to hostages shortly after their kidnapping, acknowledged their responsibility for those crimes. We submit that these crimes could not have been committed without their actions. They are charged both as co-perpetrators and as superiors pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute.
The goal of any machine is determined by its creator. The only problem with AI is determining exactly who is legally liable for its output, and that will be resolved by a decision in a court of law.Decisions in court of law are determined by the terminal goal set to their creation in the first place.
Wrong starting point. Why assume that there is or should be one? Anyway, ΔS > 0, whatever.
Researchers in AI safety is struggling with the goal alignment problem. What should entities much smarter than all of humans combined should align their goals to? Should they align their goals with us, humans who created them? Or should we humans align our goals with theirs instead?
The question can't be answered without properly defining goal. It leads to the concept of consciousness, which also needs to be properly defined. Philosophers of the pasts have failed to reach a consensus because they haven't found workable definitions of those concepts.