Schrodinger did not have a cat. He did, however, have both a wife and a mistress who lived in the same house. So the uncertainty relationship was who he was sleeping with on any given night.

@ProfessorFate

11 ай бұрын

Seems to me that the “uncertainty” was whether he would find himself alive or dead in the morning.

@metoo6599

11 ай бұрын

That explains the dead/alive thing. Mfr was scared😂

@stefanblumhoff2744

11 ай бұрын

​@@ProfessorFate you would be very surprised what culture, and individuals let you get away with😮

Thank you very much.

Nice one!

Wait a minute ... has somebody repealed E=MC**2? What I learned is that energy AND MATTER can not be created or destroyed, because matter and energy are the same. Neutrinos are matter and have mass, the rule should apply to them as well. I've never heard any physics discussions implying that neutrinos can appear or disappear into nothing, that their mass can be disregarded in physical transformations

@DerpMuse

11 ай бұрын

Where did you learn that stuff? Nobody disproved Einstein. Einstein isn't super related to the topic other than tangentially. If you know about conserved transformations in physics. Being Mass Charge Spin. You would know that virtual particles are a thing. Everything is conserved in the net field values. but for instance. An Electron Positron pair can emerge and self annihilate an infinite number of times and the net values haven't changed, only the total entropy increases, meaning permutations increase.

Having a chat bot quote without the model and version means the quote can be easily ignored.

@fermilab

11 ай бұрын

Not a problem. It was the GPT-4, 3/23 release.

Nobody can replace yall ❤

Where is Dr. Don? 😢

@fermilab

11 ай бұрын

Dr. Don's next video comes out this week! Stay tuned and thanks for watching!

Sooner or later, we will see machine learning algorithms that learn to design and improve machine learning algorithms... 49.9 percent 'garbage in' would suffice.

The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own. Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own. If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago. Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time. Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God. Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us. Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.

Analysis of signals for detection in neutrino physics experiments is what I'm getting my PhD doing. I played with AI reconstruction for a bit without a ton of success. They are darn cool though.

@mudfossiluniversity

Жыл бұрын

We used pulsed lasers thru venturis to create "Sterile Muons" and Electron Showers from the Muon and Electron Neutrinos.....as shown in these experiments. kzread.info/dash/bejne/daZq0qmceq2TpNY.html

@AnantshreeBhatt

4 ай бұрын

I'm going to start my project on neutrino oscillations from next month...would u recommend me something to begin this with

@adamredwine774

4 ай бұрын

@@AnantshreeBhatt what’s your area and level of education? A grad student in a physics program I assume?

@AnantshreeBhatt

4 ай бұрын

@@adamredwine774 yeah I'm in a master's program...and I just know very basic things about neutrinos...my supervisor is busy...she only told me project will be on neutrino oscillations...do you have some tips?

@adamredwine774

4 ай бұрын

@@AnantshreeBhatt good luck. It’s very difficult stuff. I can’t offer a ton without knowing more about the project specifically. I have really enjoyed “Introduction to Elementary Particles” by Griffiths. I think he’s one of the best textbook authors out there. That book has a chapter on neutrino oscillations. It may be a bit much for a masters student but if you think you might continue with a PhD it’s probably worth picking up. At a more accessible level, fermilab has a great KZread channel and an entire series on neutrinos called “even bananas” that gives super intuitive explanations of fundamental particle physics.

Thanks Dr. Hewes! I hope University of Cincinnati is treating you well, I worked on my master's degree there when the Physics/Geology building was new. Spent most of my in the basement, or in the observatory on top of Braunstein Hall.

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching!

In my own opinion, AI only exist's in glass (or steel) square mathematical adherence. Within the human mind, in Darwinism timetable's; knowledge is all relative to extension of eyesight. That is, base mechanic's hold true, but do not exist to true adherence once extended into gravity timetable's. Like somebody from a different country, learning English at an old age. Language in true format only exist's in neuronal patterning, that all culture's relate to different part's of the psyche. The same direction in English, but totally different input's. Extended, its impossible to hold to base mechanic's

Gotta figure the curve if there is one, and space them out correctly. The small can assemble the big if the standard model has pinned down all the particles. If there is a right hand neutrino, could it be, say, twice the speed of light and would have to collide to harmonize into a slowerz smaller left handed neutrino? Leading to a platform for a heirarchy of particles kzread.info/dash/bejne/lHpk1KSqYbuXYqw.html

The current state of AI chat seems like just a better packaged version of the earliest attempts to get mainframes to make poetry out of a handful of supplied nouns and a basic topic.

Calling it "AI" has really started to bug me. We've just completely surrendered to these companies' branding attempt, and we've abandoned the original meaning of the word. AI used to mean "What if a computer was a person?". It was a word without an example, and over the years we realized that it's a really hard question to even ground objectively if we ever created a potential example. Now it seems that companies have said "Wow, it IS a hard question to decide when a computer has become sentient. What if we just make a semantic emulator for language and call it AI? Would people just use our framing uncritically?". Well, we have. I guess that means that the company AMD has really managed to harness infinity and weave it into a fabric with their "Infinity Fabric" technology. No, it's not just a fast connection between different CPU components - it IS infinity. And now they're pushing a new branding called "AGI", which will just be a bundle of a handful of semantic emulators when one of them claims to have created it. Wow. Much more "powerful" than their "AI", and yet just as completely meaningless to the original meaning of AI. The infrastructure that currently exists for company branding has exceeded our hold on ideas and concepts. They give us the word with nothing that the word is supposed to hold, and we take it.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

ChatGPT is intelligent, and artificial. If you think it is just some sentence generator, spend some time thinking about what you are. I do not believe "a semantic emulator" is a well defined term, but if it was, it would apply to humans.

@SlipperyTeeth

Жыл бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint You have a very low opinion on what "intelligence" is. It doesn't seem that we can agree as we are now. I'll spend more time thinking about "what I am" - I only ask that you spend some time looking into the details of the technology that underpins "AI", and that you spend some time reading books on neurology. Regarding "semantic emulator": the term is defined plainly by the words. It emulates a semantic system. People are more than that. We have opinions on how those semantic systems are structured. You may have noticed that I place my commas outside of my quotations. This violates the standard "rules" for this semantic system, and yet I've chosen of my own accord to do it this way, because I believe it makes more sense. We also create semantic systems. Spherical video didn't exist a few decades ago, and we created it in an attempt to create a semantic system that better captures our external experiences. There are dozens of examples that show that people are not confined to processing within semantic systems.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@SlipperyTeeth I'm well aware of how ChatGPT works. Neurology didn't get us very far in understanding intelligence, so you may want to be more specific in what exactly I should study, if you want me to act on that recommendation. Current AI is trained to follow the input texts as closely as possible, but it's a matter of changing a parameter if you want it to break rules more often. GPT can write incorrect sentences if you ask it to. And it invents never-seen-before sentences everytime it speaks. The main limitation of current AIs is that they are not persistent - they can't prepare an answer beforehand and adjust it before sending it out, and they don't learn once training is finished. The second "limitation" is that they are language-oriented, not physics-oriented, so GPT's skillset is different from ours, not necessarily smaller. Both these limitations can be easily overcome. There is no qualitative difference between a chatbot and a human, just quantity.

In my experience with ChatGPT if you ask silly questions you get silly answers...

@jqxok

11 ай бұрын

I asked it what it knew about me and as an example of my research, it listed three papers I had published. The problem is that none of the articles in question even exist, even though they sounded somewhat plausible.

AI = Bonzi Buddy 2.0 😃

Seems there's not much i in ai. 🙂

"Never" is a long time. It's foolish at 4:58 to predict AI will never replace theoretical physicists.

@justinvt

11 ай бұрын

People really want to believe humans are magic.

@brothermine2292

11 ай бұрын

@@justinvt : Right. Creating a scientific theory doesn't require magic. It's reasonable to expect computers will someday exceed humans' ability to recognize patterns, deduce consequences of physics equations, and engage in trial & error thought experiments.

I am confuse. It is dumb of me. Nina probably is real human being because graphics is too real.

Same deal in programming. You ask ChatGPT a question and it replies with something that sounds like an answer but sometimes makes absolulety no sense or sometimes it's the solution to only a similar problem, not yours. So you know, you can't take anything seriously from it.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

I usually manage to take something useful from ChatGPT's answers. In fact, usually, I ask something I don't know, so *any* answer is at least as good as mine.

@sogerc1

Жыл бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint That is true but the problem is you can't be sure it's good enough. So, say I ask it about the AMRAAM, no big deal if it gives incorrect answers, I was only curious anyway, but at work for ex if I'm managing people's money there's very little room for errors, I can't rely on ChatGPT in that case.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@sogerc1 Humans make mistakes too. GPT is an artificial intelligence, not a god. Taking shortcuts, mixing facts and fiction, or remembering incorrectly are very humane things. Also, Bing usually offers references. I never checked because I didn't need to, but it can at least save you time searching for them.

Check please

what was that

AI, machine learning, and matrix multiplication are three different things. Machine learning is one of the techniques to implement AI. Similarly, matrix multiplication is a popular method to carry out the computation of artificial neural networks, which is one of the machine learning techniques.

@BlackbodyEconomics

Жыл бұрын

I was just about to say something very similar minus matrix algebra. The technical relationship between AI and ML is not well understood by most people and people that "prefer" to use their own definition just because it doesn't fit their personal philosophy really just contribute to keeping the waters muddy.

@threemr01

Жыл бұрын

@@BlackbodyEconomics yup! That was as weird as those still pushing the ill-conceived notion that “it’s just a bunch of nested if-else constructs”. That bit was disappointing, coming from Fermilab.

@housellama

Жыл бұрын

AI researcher here. In the industry, AI and ML have very specific definitions. Machine Learning deals with structured data, that is, data that is all in the same format. The algorithm doesn't have to interpret the data itself. It's like feeding a spreadsheet with good labels into the algorithm. Artificial Intelligence uses unstructured data, which is like feeding a comma-separated file with no labels at all into the algorithm. Matrix multiplication is just a math technique. Matrix multiplication is often used in ML an AI techniques like neural networks because computers can do them REALLY EFFICIENTLY, which makes them super useful when you need to process a lot of data very quickly. The only real difference between ML and AI in the industry itself is the type of data the algorithm processes.

I want to know more about the Fermilab Wilson cluster Institutional Cluster now.

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

We hope to feature this in an upcoming video! Thanks for watching!

Fascinating!

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

If the universe is expanding, then is the space between nucleus and proton also increasing. Is size of planet Earth increasing or only the space between galaxy is increasing.

@seriousmaran9414

Жыл бұрын

Space is only expanding on a very large scale, much bigger than galaxies. The forces between atomic particles is far more than enough to counter this. Even gravity does so easily.

Wtf is 3:25

Thanks Doctor Hewes and Doctor Duffy. This was interesting stuff.

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Has Dr. Hewes used AI in spontaneous symmetry breaking studies too?

Mains plug powering the AI cannot be in superposition.

Neutrino a Italian Neutron ?

@halilbakar7538

Жыл бұрын

Nope

@halilbakar7538

Жыл бұрын

Neutrino is a fundamental particle of matter likewise quark.

@brothermine2292

Жыл бұрын

Its discoverer was Italian.

@justinvt

11 ай бұрын

It is an italian diminutive - in english we may have called the neutrino the mini-neutron, but that defines the neutrino in terms of the neutron, when it's its own "thing". We translate it as "little neutral one".

I like the new format. Thank for sharing.

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

3:25 CNNs aren't just "machine vision algorithms". CNNs are also used for natural language processing, game AI, etc.

Serious question. Are we absolutely fucked?

the permanent ones unrealistic fantasies from FL :))) can someone from FL write a definitions of science and knowledge :)

Wait, what all was AI in this video? The person in glasses gave me this weird uncanny valley feeling. Like it was an AI representation and not exactly right.

@threemr01

Жыл бұрын

Nah, that was just his weird forced mannerisms, but still a human.

We're doomed

Q: Is the cat pictured in this photo (3:40) alive or dead? A: If the photo was taken recently, the answer is unknown. If the current year is 2060 or later, the cat is most definitely dead.

Man, I really seem to be the only person on this planet that can't keep a Monstera alive 😔

@iamjimgroth

Жыл бұрын

Yup.

We're safe for now, but it's only a matter of time before AI learns to make decisions, then we just have to guide these decisions.

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

It already makea decisions, within the context it's allowed to act, such as automated driving.

@seriousmaran9414

Жыл бұрын

AI makes a lot of decisions already, just that most of them are irrelevant or insignificant on a large scale. There are already thousands of decisions made to help doctors diagnose disease every day, although the doctor gets a list of the most likely problems and decides from that. In this it is not the machine making the final decision, nor is it guided as such. Then you have ChatGPT which can produce legal documents or programs. It also creates prompts for photorealistic image generators. We are on the edge of a huge change where models are no longer needed for fashion shows or photographic events. The characters will be AI generated, same in films and TV. Difference being you will not be able to tell the difference. AI business management in 10 years.

@seriousmaran9414

Жыл бұрын

@@marcosolo6491 many thermostats are just bimetallic straps that expand at different rates when warm, causing a switch to operate. That is about as dumb as you can get.

@seriousmaran9414

Жыл бұрын

@Marco Solo on a very low level computers are just a lot of switches working very quickly. What depends is the software running. AI is reaching a complexity that the operators do not understand what it is doing. That to many is frightening. Then are we any better with other humans?

@justinvt

11 ай бұрын

@@seriousmaran9414 You could make a thermostat that doesn't work properly. Is a broken thermostat smarter than a working one?

1:20 This argument is philosophically bankrupt. The same argument could be made for the human brain. "There's nothing really intelligent about it. It's just a bunch of nerve impulses." Machine learning is a programming technique for solving problems using a training set instead of an algorithm. AI is just one such application.

Wow😂😂😂😂 0:28 Just like a calculator 1:20 1+1=

AI is very good at dealing with static facts but not so good at dealing with new facts. How would they know that they are facts if they discovered them? How would they know they are new and not just commonly known ones that they happened to stumble across? Humans can differentiate different kinds of input, like whether it's a teaching from a parent or it's something random from the environment. We know intuitively whether something is very random or not very random at all. Whether it fits a pattern, doesn't, or is borderline. The AI would just say "No pattern found yet." Right?

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

Completely wrong. - humans are very bad at deciding what is true and false - humans use exactly the same methods as AI to do it, but worse - AI cannot discover new facts, because it lives within a computer Your ideas about how AI works seem to be from the year 2000 or so. There have been advances.

You have crossed a line with this video. I suspect an AI is deliberately sabotaging your channel in order to assume control.

Welcome to age of AI.

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

The age of information seemed very short ... about 2 decades 😬

@cossth

Жыл бұрын

@@XB10001 If the universe is expanding, then is the space between nucleus and proton also increasing. Is size of planet Earth increasing or only the space between galaxy is increasing.

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

@@cossth 🤔 ... as long as the subatomic particles remain within the distance they can interact, I'd say we are safe. Space may expand, but matter/energy can still move to that newly created space.

@cossth

Жыл бұрын

@@XB10001 Yes, this can be the case. I am satisfied with answer, Until Dr Don says something else.

Where is Don?

Ai is much better at assembling buzzwords to create a new naturopathic fad than to create anything new having sense !

@Kirsty Your hair has the same color as a banana 😂

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

Such a profound comment for a Fermilab video ...

So the joke here is, that the entire video script was writen by an AI?

@sarahwbs

Жыл бұрын

No

NO. Where's the bloke?

Yet.

I am here for this, but please don't wear a tank top while talking to me about neutrinos or AI.

@adampope5107

Жыл бұрын

Why?

Yep, it makes sense to use LLM to do physics.

Today's ai's lack of real intelligence isn't going to last long. A couple of years from now they'll be much much more. They are already getting tons of developers hooked on improving them.

if AI can actively learn with neurons on perhabs analog computers with a camera as eyes, microphone as ears n stuff, with the ability to connect and unconnect the neurons with each other it can have some sort of consciousness (no dopamine transmitters n stuff so without emotions and probably different that ours depending on the design I guess). Saying It is nothing mystical is true, but our brains aren't anything mystical either, a bunch of neurons communicating with each other, cool, yet when it comes to value our own consciousness most people would say it is mystical or sth 5:50 also why should that be a relief? that's a very selfish response

Unsubscribed. Thank you! 🙂

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

@@Mister_Garibaldi _"Because they feature a supposed scientist"_ What do you mean by "supposed"? Are you saying that their scientific credentials are faked? Where is your evidence for that? _"who denies basic biology? Chromosomes aren't hard."_ What exactly do they deny about chromosomes? Could you please provide a statement or anything substantial to base these accusations of yours.

@Mister_Garibaldi

Жыл бұрын

@@romanski5811 Can you read? My comment was very clear. How do you imagine words that aren't in my comment? Oh, that's right, you are also a science denier.

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

​@@Mister_Garibaldi You keep saying that word "den[y]", but you still haven't said what exactly it is that they (and apparently myself also) deny about chromosomes? *What is being denied about chromosomes?* Please provide an answer to this question.

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

@@Mister_Garibaldi What is being denied about chromosomes?

Early days on AI and it does not claim to be accurate especially with technical answers.

Ok, cats have no relation to neutrinos. Got it! mmm... wait...

You should ask Dr V (whatever that stands for) Hawes to dress professional next time. I'm here for science, not politics.

@sarahwbs

Жыл бұрын

What politics did you see in this video exactly? Sounds like projection to me. 🙄

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

Both didn't wear a suit, so both were unprofessional.

dislike, you know why

@romanski5811

Жыл бұрын

Well, I know that there's debate about whether the term "AI" is appropriate, but why would you dislike it just because of that?

@Mister_Garibaldi

Жыл бұрын

@@romanski5811 Again, you pretend you don't understand and then you make up things that no one ever said. You are as insane as "V".

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

What does a woman think? Now that is ah question that'll blow AIs quantum circuit... .

@137limon8

11 ай бұрын

Ah know Ah can't count that high, but maybe AI can answer. What is the total amount of losses in "Capital Generation." from Pootens absurd bid for glory, including monies lost from failure to invest in the Russian Folks future? Russia has trillions in minerals and hydrocarbons, failure to develop.

@137limon8

11 ай бұрын

...oh, "...and in a 40yr. generation, including offspring from Soldiers who died."

It seems highly capable of writing rubbish 😂

CNN? These have cycles?

Ne kadar tatlı bir şeysin sen öyle :)

The human brain is just "bio-machine" learning. If we are intelligent, then AI ... machine learning ... is as well.

@sammikinsderp

Жыл бұрын

Non sequitur. Most definitions of intelligence state a requirement for consciousness. By all definitions, machine learning is not conscious. The models, specifically language models, simply try to guess the next words in a sequence based on mathematical probability. They are not consciously creating sentences or paragraphs through abstraction, reasoning, creativity, and critical thinking. Humans seem to have an ability to think abstractly which gives us our creativity. When logic is applied, we develop new hypotheses to test and build upon. So far, machine learning algorithms don't see capable of this. The models may seem intelligent, and we've taken huge leaps toward that end; but they simply look back at the previous parts of the conversation, read your prompt, and mathematically guess the next word in the sequence. You're not having a conversation with it, you're just giving a computer a complex math problem to solve. This differs from humans because we don't always have to guess the next word in the sequence. If you ask me what 1+1 is, I can answer with "purple". While the expected response is "2", I used abstraction to creatively circumvent that. These models are not capable of doing that; they simply mimic (based on weights and biases) the things they've read. And with an astronomically large dataset, they mimic quite well, to such a degree that they seem intelligent and conscious.

@robinwallace7097

Жыл бұрын

@Sammikins Have you ever watched a child learn? Its parents and its environment provide the same kind of feedback that the AI is receiving. A newborn infant only has the "potential" to develop creativity and critical thinking skills. AI is in its infant phase.

LOL The term A.I. seems to have captured the emotions of a vast (maybe even a majority) grouping of humanity. That grouping of humanity are the non-thinkers, the ones who seem to believe that life is best lived by following your current emotional state without much (or often any) logical oversight. To this group, if a machine can answer basic questions and do so with language that closely mimics how they would expect another person to answer, then that machine is artificially intelligent, even when it is not. We clearly have a very long way to go before we will be creating our first actual artificial intelligence. 😃

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

I'd say that programmers, physicists and technology reporters are above average in both usage of ChatGPT and ability to think. The road to actual artificial intelligence is much shorter than you think. Not because there will be a huge advancement, but because intelligence is simple.

@mcconkeyb

Жыл бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint Its an honor to get a reply from the smartest and soon to be richest person on Earth. I look forward to reading your published theory and supporting data showing us all what intelligence is and how to define it, I'm sure that work will allow us to quickly move from our current lack of a definite understanding to the point where A.I. can replace all of humanity. 😂🤣

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@mcconkeyb How did you come to the idea that I'm the smartest person on Earth? It's obvious to anyone that ChatGPT is a giant leap towards intelligent behavior. It's not my task to define intelligence. For me, "better than an average human in every non-physical task" is sufficient, and that goal is very, very near. If you define intelligence as the ability to analyze and synthetize, GPT already does it. People have used GPT to gain advantage over their competitors already. Maybe you missed the news... all of them? Sadly, I fail to see how to make myself richer than anyone else using it.

@mcconkeyb

Жыл бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint Maybe watch this video again, and again and again... Its not A.I. its machine learning.

@justinvt

11 ай бұрын

@@mcconkeyb Labs at MIT.... - Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory - MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab - Quest for Intelligence

If AI can't do it, then it can design something that soon will - physics will be solved soon enough - 42 :)

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

You can't "solve physics".

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@XB10001 Finding the theory of everything can be considered "solving physics".

@XB10001

Жыл бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint physics is not "a problem to solve". The theory of everything would just allow you to explain and predict all possible outcomes. Do you also "solve mathematics", or "solve philosophy", or "solve medicine"?

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@XB10001 Physics *is* the way to predict what happens in the real world under given conditions. Being able to predict solves physics, by definition. Medicine is surely solvable, although I'd say it will be pointless before it's solved. Philosophy is a soft science (read: not science at all). If you have a well defined question, it can be solved (usually not immediately). Vague questions don't have definite answers. Regarding mathematics... do we have to map the Multiverse to the last elemetary particle to understand how it works? You can spend the life exploring but never be surprised by new physics. Same with math. You can keep finding new ideas, but logic stays the same. You could say that math was solved in 19th century.

@brothermine2292

Жыл бұрын

​​@@XB10001 : Why are you being so narrow-minded about how the word "solve" may be used? If a theory "explains and predicts" everything in its domain, it seems reasonable to say the theory "solves" the domain. People hearing that would understand what was meant by it.

MASHALLAH brother really like your story....wish u all the best the goodness and happiness and best wishes to u

Some of ya'll bigots in the comments need to let people be how they want to be.

@thstroyur

11 ай бұрын

Doesn't sound like you want to let _they_ be how they want to be... bigot 😂

Obviously a messed up Bud Light drinker.

Unsubscribing.

@wizbit66

11 ай бұрын

ditto

Never used it, never will.

@fredericapanon207

Жыл бұрын

Have you used Bing. That search site now has an ML engine.

Fermilab. 95. And a half years. Behind the times. Good job. Earthlings

Just if...then loops. Created by Rube Golberg in the 1940s

Dude looks like a lady