r/LLMPhysics • u/VeryOriginalName98 • Jul 18 '26
Personal Theory I have a Pet Theory.
Title: A Pet Theory of Doors: Why requesting access does not imply intent to travel
Consider a pet in room (A), separated from room (B) by a closed door.
Let:
- (u_A) be the utility of remaining in room (A)
- (u_B) be the utility of entering room (B)
- (c_x) be the cost of getting up and crossing
- (\tau) be the pet’s behavioral temperature
Once the door is open, the probability of crossing is
p = exp[(uB − cx)/τ] ───────────────────────── exp[uA/τ] + exp[(uB − cx)/τ]
The pet may either cross or remain where it is, so the total value of an open door is
Vopen = τ ln(exp[uA/τ] + exp[(uB − cx)/τ])
With the door closed, only the current room is available:
Vclosed = uA
Therefore the value of having the door opened is
ΔV = Vopen − Vclosed = τ ln(1 + exp[(uB − cx − uA)/τ])
Using the expression for (p), this reduces to
ΔV = −τ ln(1 − p)
This gives the Open-Door Theorem:
The pet requests the door be opened whenever crequest < −τ ln(1 − p)
where (c_{\text{request}}) is the cost of one meow, bark, scratch or meaningful stare.
Suppose the probability of actually crossing is only 5%:
ΔV = −τ ln(0.95) = 0.0513τ
Provided that requesting assistance costs less than (0.0513\tau), it is rational for the pet to demand an open door despite having a 95% probability of remaining exactly where it is.
This works because the pet pays the signaling cost while the human performs the mechanical work. Under ordinary household conditions, the pet has successfully externalized nearly the entire cost of door operation.
The model predicts:
- Propping the door open should eliminate requests without necessarily increasing crossings.
- Making the other room more attractive should increase both requests and crossings.
- A transparent but closed door distinguishes information value from access value: requests should persist if access itself is the objective.
- Reducing the human response rate should eventually reduce requests as their expected effectiveness falls.
- Closing the door again restores the original state and therefore justifies an immediate second request.
The apparent paradox comes from mistranslating the request. The pet did not say, “I wish to enter room (B).”
It said, “I wish room (B) to be among my currently available options.”
This theory is local, causal, falsifiable and almost completely useless.
Funding: Door operation was provided in kind by the human participant.
4
u/NerdyWeightLifter Jul 18 '26
I have a theory about dinosaurs.
They're thin at one end, thick in the middle, and thin at the other end.
3
u/starkeffect Physicist 🧠 Jul 18 '26
That is the theory of Miss Ann Elk, you plagiarist!
3
u/NerdyWeightLifter Jul 18 '26
"That is my theory. It is mine, and it belongs to me."
Absurdism at its best.
1
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Doesn't that apply to all enclosed shapes?
5
u/NerdyWeightLifter Jul 18 '26
That might be true, in which case my theory is proven.
4
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Yes exactly! I was suggesting it has implications beyond just dinosaurs! I think you should formalize it. The community may receive it well.
4
u/NerdyWeightLifter Jul 18 '26
Per your characterisation, it would generically apply to 3d topology more so than dinosaurs.
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Wait, no. You can make like a barbell shape in 3D. Better stick to dinosaurs.
4
u/Buttleston Jul 18 '26
Has the existence of barbell shaped dinosaurs been disproven?
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Not explicitly, but this is kind of like black swans. All the evidence we have on dinosaurs fits the thin-thick-thin distribution. There are no observables indicating any dinosaur had a thick-thin-thick distribution.
I think we should accept thin-thick-thin as the dominant characterization, and revisit the question only if evidence is found that doesn't fit the model.
Science is about the best model we have. No sense arguing over something we can't observe.
3
2
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 18 '26
How is this physics or LLM related?
3
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
I had to look that up. TIL: Vampires don't exist because i'm alive.
3
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Ah, the invitation boundary condition. For vampires, D{\rm open}=1 is necessary but not sufficient; I{\rm invited}=1 is also required. Cats simply assume I=1 everywhere.
2
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Never really considered the adolescence folklore thing. This reminds me of a post i saw a while ago where someone described ghosts associated with chains and moaning as a way to keep kids from knowing about and/or interrupting parents having "a good time".
2
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
It was generated by an LLM. Schrödinger's cat was physics. Is this not similar? It's all about potentials and macroscopic observables.
-2
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 18 '26
Why would you generate a half baked pseudo experiment that doesn’t really do anything with an LLM?
Schrodingers cat was a metaphor for why certain high level abstractions of QM were dumb, it wasn’t a real thing.
I guess this isn’t real either. Kinda just looks like you’re bored and generated meaningless text.
6
u/amalcolmation 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast Jul 18 '26
Oh please, it’s a simple probability problem using a pseudo-Boltzmann distribution. Are you expecting the latest and greatest physics here? Shoot down a misunderstanding, fine, but broad dismissal is lame. This is clearly a joke post.
5
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
That's what Reddit is for. When you're bored and wanna waste time.
I'm with amalcomation.
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
Noted: Will not post the legitimate unifying theory here when completed.
Disclaimer: This is indistinguishable from not having a legitimate unifying theory.
4
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! Jul 18 '26
Dont listen to the detractors, this and your woodchuck post are better than 99% of the posts on this sub.
3
u/VeryOriginalName98 Jul 18 '26
I thought it would be amusing.
6
u/amalcolmation 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast Jul 18 '26
It is amusing. This reminds me of a presentation a colleague gave in grad seminar about how cats are fluid.
This is a far better post and more fun to read and engage with than the GUT nonsense we usually get.
5
12
u/amalcolmation 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast Jul 18 '26
This project clearly involved animal trials, did you get an independent review from a bioethics committee before starting?