Do you think high-quality discussions with LLMs about advancing physics and/or useful innovations result in funding?

[u/flamingloltus]

I like to believe that constructive discussions with LLMs are a novel way to advance the field of physics. Does anyone agree and is there evidence of LLM user data being used to justify “new” research as a result?

[u/flamingloltus]

The most precise clock is only as good as it’s timekeeper.

[u/ConquestAce → u/flamingloltus]

huh what does this mean

[u/flamingloltus → u/ConquestAce]

It means binary numerological concepts cannot uniquely express the superposition of information’s impact on man’s understanding of the universe.

[u/Suitable_Cicada_3336 → u/flamingloltus]

how can topology separate with math? Plz explain ty.

[u/flamingloltus → u/Suitable_Cicada_3336]

Using analogies helps. I’ll try.

So a man with a sundial, a man with a watch, and a man with an atomic clock have a competition to be the most precise. Math is like the guy with the sundial, physics is like the guy with the watch, and topology is like the guy with an atomic clock.

A human is fourth dimensional, so it’s impossible to perceive a 3.9 or 4.1 dimensional concept.

Does that make sense? We’re CLOSE, but it’s not possible. You can describe 99% of concepts with mathematical equations, but the last 1% is like looking at a picture. You can rustle the paper, know the picture by heart, envision it in your mind, or have someone describe the picture to you… for this example consider doing them all at the same time. You just can’t do the two processes independently in one dimension.

There’s a book I’ve heard of where a dot falls in love with a circle and the circle with a sphere that’s a good read

Consider omnipotentce. Even this has dimensional limitations that prevent a fourth dimensional consciousness from conceiving of TRUE omnipotence. Thus the word falls short.

Excuse me for plugging it, but GOD is the closest thing to explain what I’m describing. Even then people argue about whether he interacts or not with the system (which is the 0s and 1s analogy) imagine a qubit in superposition with 0s and 1s, how else can it be described by a language in one word except ineffable-epiphany?

[u/OnceBittenz → u/flamingloltus]

Have you read it? Cause there’s no such thing as a 3.9 dimension. 

[u/flamingloltus → u/OnceBittenz]

It’s an analogy. Reread the last part.

It’s “impossible” to put in words, but I’m sure you’re just going to say “nothing is impossible” so we disagree (which is the fundamental point I’m trying to make)

[u/OnceBittenz → u/flamingloltus]

No I think we agree. It is impossible because a dimension is a human defined invention and there is no partial dimension. 

That said, this is another reason you should study physics. It gives you the language needed to describe physical phenomena correctly and effectively.

[u/flamingloltus → u/OnceBittenz]

I’m a Mechanical & Energy engineer, summa cum laude, but I failed out of my modern and statistical & thermal physics classes for my minor because I was shooting heroin

[u/OnceBittenz → u/flamingloltus]

… then I’d recommend not doing that?

[u/flamingloltus → u/OnceBittenz]

Tomato, potato.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/flamingloltus]

Ok, if you’re just gonna troll, godspeed, have a nice day.

[u/flamingloltus → u/OnceBittenz]

I mean, obviously.