AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 130
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The answer will sound trite - based on empirically derived data.
Arrays of data of interaction with the environment come from all sensory organs and are transformed by the brain into meaningful information, and then, as experience is accumulated, are generalised by the intellect into the concept of "matter". Commonplace.
That's right. The opposite is the sin of subjectivists who drive themselves into a dead-end trap: "what if...", "what if everything is in my head", "what if we all live in a matrix", "what if we are a programme". And on and on it went. YouTube comments are full of such "lost" people. The funniest thing is that it is useless to prove to them not even that they are wrong, but the very meaning of their position: it is unprovable and unverifiable, i.e. useless. But as an argument - postmodern, a fresh direction of thought, wooh!
Does matter contain information about itself or not? Let's taste your "porridge" too 🙂 .
Matter can accept the structure transmitted as information. Matter itself is indifferent to this structure. It may be warm or shiny, but this does not mean that matter is warm or shiny. Those are its attributes. Being a carrier and transmitter of information is also an attribute, as in OOP.
Indeed, the only essence of matter's existence is motion: direct, orbital, oscillation, chaotic - it doesn't matter. Everything else is attributes that are readable.
Indeed, the only essence of matter's existence is motion. Everything else is attributes that are read off.
Forums are like that, first every second programmer has the grail of forex, then all the mysteries of the mind and the world are comprehended.
Sarcasm to lighten the mood. Don't forget about GPT in this thread.
Sber presented Gegachat, communication + pictures (Kandinsky)
Over 100k users subscribed to the group with one post in 1 day
3. I have already given my definition of information. It sounds like this: "information is a product of nervous activity of living organisms, which use it for the best adaptation to the environment. Information exists only at the level of the interpreter and does not impart new physical properties to the carrier."
You must understand. Giving a definition and corresponding to a phenomenon are two different things.
You see a phenomenon in the sky, call it "Meteor Amazing", give it a definition "it is a type of meteor that is different from others in that......."
Likewise here, you introduce a specific phenomenon"a product of the nervous activity of living organisms that use it to best adapt to their environment. It exists only at the level of the interpreter and does not impart new physical properties to the medium."
...and call it the GENERAL term "information", i.e. you appropriate it to yourself. This is a violation of the first law of logic "to have more than one meaning is to have no meaning". Call it "Information Reterg_Konow is a product of nervous activity of living organisms that......" . You are isolating yourself from a broader concept, but you are part of it (the example with an honour board and a toilet freshener is also information).
You have the right to call it whatever you want, but the point is that such a thing is destructive for the discussion.
It was stated above that information by general definition is some information about something, etc. Then, we got to the essence of the phenomenon via the erroneous thesis "information is matter". Then there was a refutation that information cannot be matter because it has no physical properties. The simplest examples of it were given. And already from here we can build a more complete definition of the very concept "something that has no physical (spatial) and material (frequency, density, temperature, etc.) properties, but due to which intelligence is able to exist and intellectually interact and the like".
That is, we have smoothly passed to the very phenomenon "what the hell is this", and here it is more interesting either to develop this idea or to finish the discussion about the erroneous thesis.
It is not quite clear how the field flows into matter and vice versa and through what they are connected. They sort of disassemble particles into smaller ones and don't see any particles there. The electron no longer orbits the nucleus, it arises spontaneously in different places. But it can't be divided into anything because it's the minimum indivisible charge. So you get a particle when you quantise the field. But the field is a non-discrete quantity at the same time, i.e. it is not interrupted by any particles anywhere. Some strange this quantum world, as if it does not really exist, for it is too fabulous. Maybe it's the substrate of an illusory world that hides the truth from us.
Good questions that are interesting to consider, building a logical chain. Personally, I do not succeed, I bump into the paradox of infinite division and the paradox about the largest body in the Universe: that is, somewhere I make a mistake. But, one thing I know for sure: the world is not quantised (ether and so on) - it is impossible, it is only necessary to ask an etherman what is between etherinks, his fifth point starts to burn. Space is infinite and continuous in all directions, and the universe has always existed. These are infallible judgements and on the basis of them it is possible to build something further.
Here is how to build something further from all this, hz. The initial idea is as follows: if with each new telescope we find celestial bodies of bigger and bigger size, then in infinite space there will be bodies of bigger and bigger size, and therefore striving to infinity.
On the other hand, on the macro level (judging by photos of the visible Universe) all celestial bodies have the same size (conventionally) - it is a carpet of galaxies and stars, and there is not a single star, there is not a single galaxy, which would stand out by its enormous size. That is, the thought goes to the fact that after a certain size (huge, some Arcturus or Betelgeuse, or whatever the biggest body is) further increase of size starts to slow down and the next star or body will be bigger, but not so much as the difference between the previous ones. That is, if we start travelling through the Universe, we will eventually come to the fact that each next giant body will be bigger than the previous record first by millions of km, then by hundreds of thousands of km, then by thousands of km/second. km, then by thousands of km/hundreds of km/km and so on downwards.
As in MT5 optimiser) At first the profit is huge, then it starts to "refine" and add a little bit with each new adjustment.
The same is true in the microcosm: there are known particles. It's accepted that they can't be split. Then something splits and a huge amount of energy is released. Here it is clear that this is the effect of gravity, because something will not appear from nothing. That is, gravity is the most "killing" force in the Universe and all the effects (nuclear explosion, radiation, radio, wi-fi, matter, coca-cola) are all based on it.
It seems to me that fission below is possible. And beyond that there will be smaller and smaller particles. But, if there is a boundary of any kind in the universe, it is the fission boundary. There must be some minimal object that will oscillate. And, apparently, here to pass into a field.
That is, the field, then flows into a particle, then flows into matter.
I also swear at him. I hope he doesn't remember it