• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Cognitive Theory, ongoing progress

I started a thread here some time ago in an attempt to find perspective. I never did. Three years later, I finally found some in a November 19, 2018 post in Sabine Hossenfelder's Backreaction blog. The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal.
Nothing to do with this thread which is about your still erroneous and unsupported claims, barehl.

The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal is a presentation of well known physics.

Nuclear physicists have a supported and working Standard Model. But there are known issues, e.g. there are many parameters that they would like to be reduced, neutrino masses are not accommodated in it, we would like it to have particles that can be dark matter. Theoretical physicists extend the Standard Model to fix the issues. Experiments look for data confirming the predictions of those models but do not find matches. These are the null results that Sabine Hossenfelder talks about. She labels the lack of progress "stagnation" because the science is being done as usual. She has no fixes.

That is nothing to do with the current high level of process in AI research.
 
It's been just over a year since I posted in this thread. I think it was back in 2016 that someone brought up the problem of determinance if a pseudo-random number generator was used that wouldn't loop within a person's lifetime, say, 200 years. Unfortunately, with legitimate questions, you can't just hand wave them away. So, that question has bothered me for the past three years. I finally managed to solve that part.

Why don't I give up? When I was little I had enough patience to untangle kite string. This is just a more complicated kite string.
 
It's been just over a year since I posted in this thread. I think it was back in 2016 that someone brought up the problem of determinance if a pseudo-random number generator was used that wouldn't loop within a person's lifetime, say, 200 years. Unfortunately, with legitimate questions, you can't just hand wave them away. So, that question has bothered me for the past three years. I finally managed to solve that part.

Why don't I give up? When I was little I had enough patience to untangle kite string. This is just a more complicated kite string.
What's the solution?
 
Back
Top Bottom