AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 128
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
...
"... "where, after all, did this matter come from..."
Matter is what...excuse me?...
I don't know about you...but I have no data indicating the existence of any "matter"....
Give me a hint,...please,...if you don't mind....
Not even a falling apple like Newton's is going to help. You need a brick from the roof.)
Actually, no. Familiarise yourself with modern string theories or M-theory, you will find that in them space is arranged very cleverly (11-dimensional space with 4 open, time and volume, and with 7 "coiled" subspaces), filled with "strings" (some primitive objects that form links between points in space), whose vibrations form, or rather "manifest", the quarks known to us, of which all material particles and fields consist. In such a system strings are carriers of information, and all that they "form" is information about their mutual interactions. And further up the level of complexity we come to complex familiar to us objects and even our own thinking.
Besides, such arrangement of space solves theoretical problems of gravitation and time. The nuance of time is that for many physical processes it may well go in the opposite direction and physics does not collapse, but we always observe the development of processes only in the direction of increasing entropy.
In general, I do not want to go deeper (and I am not an expert in this subject), but if I were you, I would not make groundless statements that matter =/= information.
...
I proceed from the fact that the etymology of the word"information" does not allow attributing it to matter. In contrast, I see that organisms with nervous activity resolve their existence by means of signals and representations. And the first carrier of information is the neural network. When information about the world becomes too much, in order to save space and resources, a highly developed NS transfers it to external carriers. However, using physical objects as carriers of information does not give them new physical properties. Information does not transfer into matter from carriers . There is no such physical process.
I will not discuss string theory, because I know it very superficially. Having had a quick look at the Wikipedia article, I didn't find anything about information there. Maybe I missed it. If you find it, please give me a link.
(about the posts scribbled between this yours and this mine)...
Look at the infinite variety of the most diverse, not having a solid foundation, versions of the structure of the world around generates a frivolous,... almost imperceptible for interlocutors introduction of a new, completely incomprehensible object "matter".... That's it. As soon as it is inserted into a strict structure, the gates are immediately opened for countless assumptions and branching, leading nowhere....
(now an objection to your assertion)...
"... "where, after all, this matter came from..."
Matter is what... excuse me?...
I don't know about you,... but I have no data indicating the existence of any "matter"....
Give me a hint,...please,...if you don't mind....
I understand your trolling). If you read your previous post and my response to it carefully, you will see that I strictly adhered to the limits of your logic.
I can't answer where matter came from, but based on your logic, it came from the void, which you yourself called a physical object.
Right here:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT.
onceagain, 2023.04.24 08:58 AM
Truth be told...
Good day, everyone.
And if you start sticking to facts, you should not print a lot of letters about matter without explaining to people WHERE, after all, this matter appeared...
Otherwise, all further reasoning about it loses all sense.
And the same facts, with their inherent stubbornness, unperturbedly poke us right in the eye that the only physical object, which, without any problems, has the right to exist always, without the need to appear for the first time, is "emptiness", ... the complete absence of anything ....
If you recognise this fact, the conversation will be one...
If you do not recognise this fact, a completely different story will begin....
mass can arise from energy, and energy does not need volume, from this point of view it is easy to imagine the appearance of Everything from one point. where it came from, the energy in the point is another question.
And by the way, why did the Big Bang only produce hydrogen? - The answer is simple - hydrogen is the minimum possible information, at the moment of explosion there is no other information. it is exactly the same as getting 1 kg of copper from energy, it will not be possible to create a statuette with 1 kg mass.
Well, that's just a thought.
I try to cut off my thought as soon as I smell bullshit, and if I don't say more, it means I realise the limitations of my understanding and don't want to create fantasies). Not wanting to fantasise and not being able to, are different things. Having a limited imagination and not imagining on purpose are also.
If information exists outside the medium, then it should have a physical expression in the material world. However, there is no such thing (yet). If physicists register "information field" or "information particles", they will certainly inform us.))
Here you "smell" delirium.
Information owes you nothing.
There is information, there is a carrier of information. That's it.
Assertions devoid of scientific basis and not supported either experimentally or theoretically are unsubstantiated.
You need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.
Then tell me the physical properties of information.
UPD
If you can't, congratulations - information does not interact with matter.
How did they know if there was no observer? Well, if they did, then there was an observer.
In the experiment, they shot atoms through a slit. Then they'd check how the atoms hit the screen. That is, to test the outcome.
Simply put, the electrons went through the slit according to normal physics and violated physics. Without observation, physical laws can be broken.
The experiment involved shooting atoms through a slit. Then they checked how the atoms hit the screen. That is, to test the outcome.
Simply put, the electrons travelled through the slit according to conventional physics and violating physics. Without observation, physical laws can be broken.
And quantum physics enthusiasts also tell us how the frog sees the world.))) She must have told them herself.
The experiment involved shooting atoms through a slit. Then they checked how the atoms hit the screen. That is, to test the outcome.
Simply put, the electrons travelled through the slit according to conventional physics and violating physics. Without observation, physical laws can be broken.
That's cool stuff. Only they have a mistake there: quantum and matter are the same thing. Any matter is a substance, a quantum and a field.
UPDI think it would be more correct to write "wave" and "particle". I think that's how it used to be written....
Furthermore, when we observe - we absorb waves. Hence, disturbing the medium. There is no contradiction in this regard.
I understand your trolling:).....
I will not be able to answer where matter came from, but if we proceed from your logic, it came from the void, which you yourself called a physical object....
Trolling...?
Not for a second
...
I'm trying to have a little fun. But my question is meant in all seriousness.
However, I will have to specifically draw your attention to the fact that the question is not about where matter came from... but "on what basis do you think your matter exists at all?"....
That's the question. Because I don't see any trace of matter.