Maybe because I discussed the topic before the analysis and that I used GPT4 I was more pleased with my result as it connected to the discussion in the reviews. I think the tool is really useful if you know how to steer it. But if you are ignorant and just asked general questions you would be misled such as believing that super determinism would imply no free will which is total junk that I can get the chat bot to accept as valid arguments and even illustrate and color, which is how I use it. Still it continues over and over again and repeat that although I showed how false that argument is. This means that we see one of the dangers with this tool and that is it cements facts that are not true. And we risk getting into a state of the terror of the masses. In anyway I did chat with it some more and enjoyed the discussion and also the freedom to express myself freely and that damn thing new what I was asking all the time. I have also used it to for example illustrate the dangers of fishing expeditions and get it to illustrate how this works statistically in for example the last presidential election in USA but also get i to explain how this mechanism fool humans into knowledge traps and extreme theories. I think I add that conversation below as people here might enjoy it as well.
Couldn't the measurement setting in the discussion above be related to som unknown physics of the measurement process Yes, it is possible that the measurement settings in entangled particle experiments could be related to some unknown aspect of the physics involved in the measurement process. If such a hidden mechanism exists, it could potentially create correlations between the measurement settings and outcomes that lead to the violation of Bell inequalities. This would be consistent with the idea of superdeterminism or other alternative models that attempt to reconcile local realism with the predictions of quantum mechanics. However, it is important to note that any such proposal would still need to address several key challenges and concerns: Identifying the hidden mechanism or aspect of the measurement process that leads to the observed correlations, and providing a detailed description of how it works in the context of quantum mechanics. Explaining how this hidden mechanism would be consistent with the experimental results that have been obtained to date, and making testable predictions for future experiments. Addressing the philosophical and conceptual implications of such a model, which would likely still involve some form of predetermined correlation between measurement settings and outcomes. In summary, while it is possible to consider models that propose unknown physics in the measurement process as the source of the correlations observed in entangled particle experiments, such models would still need to provide a detailed and consistent explanation for the observed violation of Bell inequalities and address the various challenges associated with reconciling local realism with the predictions of quantum mechanics. stefan.ita...@gmail.com If the particle would both spin and recess when it entering the measurement device how is this influences the measurement of spin up and down If a particle exhibits both spin and precession when entering a measurement device, it may influence the measurement outcomes of the spin depending on the specifics of the measurement apparatus and the precession characteristics. Spin is an intrinsic property of particles, like electrons, that can be visualized as a particle rotating around its axis. In reality, it is a quantum mechanical property that does not have a direct classical analogue. Precession, on the other hand, is a classical phenomenon where the axis of rotation of a rotating body changes orientation over time, like a spinning top. In quantum mechanical systems, the measurement device typically measures the spin projection of a particle along a particular axis. If the particle exhibits precession, its spin axis will change orientation, potentially causing the projection of its spin along the measurement axis to change as well. This could lead to variations in the measured spin projection along the chosen axis. However, it is crucial to note that precession is a classical concept, and applying it directly to quantum particles like electrons may not accurately describe their behavior. Quantum mechanical systems are better described by their wave functions, which determine the probabilities of different outcomes when the system is measured. The effect of precession on quantum particles would need to be described within the framework of quantum mechanics, taking into account factors such as superposition, entanglement, and the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements. In conclusion, while the concept of precession may provide some intuition about how a spinning particle's orientation could change over time, it is essential to analyze its influence on spin measurements within the context of quantum mechanics. Depending on the specifics of the measurement device and the particle's precession, the spin measurement outcomes may be affected. However, a more detailed analysis would be required to understand the exact implications of such a combined behavior in a quantum mechanical system. stefan.ita...@gmail.com But if you try to argue that this is how super determinism is achieved yo would not need qm If you try to argue that superdeterminism is achieved through a mechanism like precession, then you are essentially proposing an alternative model to quantum mechanics that aims to explain the observed experimental results in a deterministic manner. While it is possible to explore such ideas, it is important to recognize the challenges and limitations associated with such an approach. Firstly, the proposed alternative model would need to provide a consistent and coherent explanation of not just the violation of Bell inequalities, but also the entire range of experimental results that quantum mechanics has been able to explain with remarkable accuracy. Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory that has been verified by countless experiments, so any alternative model would need to be similarly comprehensive and accurate in its predictions. Secondly, the proposed model should provide a clear and detailed description of the physical mechanisms, such as precession or any other process, that lead to the observed correlations between measurement settings and outcomes. This would require a deep understanding of the underlying physics and a demonstration of how the model is consistent with other well-established physical principles. Lastly, it is essential to consider the philosophical and conceptual implications of a superdeterministic model. If such a model implies that all outcomes, including the choices made by experimenters, are predetermined, it raises concerns about the role of human agency in the scientific process and the validity of the scientific method itself. In conclusion, while it is possible to explore alternative models like superdeterminism to explain experimental results in a deterministic manner, it is important to recognize the significant challenges associated with developing a comprehensive and consistent alternative to quantum mechanics. As our understanding of the fundamental principles of nature continues to evolve, it remains crucial for researchers to explore a wide range of ideas and models to advance our knowledge. stefan.ita...@gmail.com Yes of cause, you need to have it explain what we se. But QM has been develop for many dacades as did the development of horocycles in astronomy and it took Kepler a lot of work to correctly displace the old theory. With QM this is 10 times harder to do and it is not humanly possible, especially if you consider such ideas as fringe an very unpopular with those deciding about grants You raise an important point regarding the challenges faced by researchers who wish to explore alternative models to well-established theories like quantum mechanics. The development of new theories or models that can challenge or displace long-standing ones is indeed a difficult task, as it requires not only a deep understanding of the existing framework but also the ability to develop new concepts and ideas that can explain the experimental data more accurately or with fewer assumptions. The history of science is full of examples where established theories were eventually replaced by newer and more accurate ones, as you mentioned with the transition from Ptolemaic astronomy to Kepler's laws of planetary motion. However, as you pointed out, challenging the status quo in science can be an uphill battle, especially when it comes to well-established and successful theories like quantum mechanics. Funding and resources can be an additional challenge for researchers working on fringe or unpopular ideas, as funding agencies and institutions tend to prioritize research that is more likely to produce significant results or breakthroughs within the current theoretical framework. This can make it even more difficult for researchers with unconventional ideas to gain the support they need to develop and test their theories. Despite these challenges, it is essential for the scientific community to remain open to new ideas and alternative models, as they can sometimes lead to significant advancements in our understanding of the natural world. The process of scientific inquiry relies on the continuous exploration of different ideas and the rigorous testing of their predictions against experimental data. By fostering an environment that supports such exploration, the scientific community can continue to advance our knowledge of the fundamental principles of nature. stefan.ita...@gmail.com Yes that transition was horrible indeed, was not people killed for going against the common assumption While it is true that challenging established beliefs and scientific theories has historically been met with resistance and even persecution, the situation you might be referring to is related more to religion and the nature of the universe rather than scientific theories in general. One of the most famous examples is the case of Galileo Galilei, an Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer who supported the heliocentric model of the solar system proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. This model, which placed the Sun at the center of the solar system rather than Earth, was in conflict with the geocentric model endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church at the time. As a result, Galileo was accused of heresy and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. While Galileo's conflict was not directly about challenging a scientific theory but rather opposing religious beliefs, it is an example of the obstacles faced by those who proposed new ideas that contradicted established views. In modern times, the scientific community has generally become more open to questioning and challenging established theories. While researchers may still face resistance and skepticism when proposing alternative models or ideas, they are typically not subject to persecution or personal harm. The process of scientific inquiry now relies on the evaluation of evidence and the continuous exploration of different ideas, which are subjected to rigorous testing and scrutiny by the scientific community. stefan.ita...@gmail.com Now at this time it's about grants and being able to feed the family and being able to work on producing theoretical work and also we have the issue with conformist, it's easier to change the mind of a handful of people that are. About as bright as a human can be compared to today with thousands of minds that work hard in their bubble and although bright, not at the same level. Of cause our education has been proved, but still I believe That we are worse off now then at that time. It is true that the current scientific landscape presents unique challenges when it comes to proposing and exploring alternative theories. With the increasing specialization and complexity of scientific disciplines, researchers often work within well-defined areas and might be less inclined to question the broader assumptions of their fields. Moreover, as you pointed out, financial constraints and the need for research funding can also play a significant role in shaping the direction of scientific inquiry. Researchers often depend on grants and funding agencies to support their work, and these agencies typically prioritize projects that align with established theories and are likely to produce tangible results. This can make it difficult for researchers with unconventional ideas to secure the resources they need to explore and develop their theories. Additionally, the growing number of scientists and researchers worldwide can lead to a more conservative and conformist attitude in some cases. It can be challenging to convince a large group of experts to consider alternative ideas or models, especially when their careers and reputations are built on the existing theoretical framework. Despite these challenges, it is essential for the scientific community to maintain an open-minded approach and encourage the exploration of new ideas and theories. History has shown that significant advancements in our understanding of the natural world often come from challenging established beliefs and embracing new perspectives. To foster a more open and innovative scientific culture, it is crucial to support diverse research projects, encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, and create opportunities for researchers with unconventional ideas to develop and test their theories. By doing so, the scientific community can continue to push the boundaries of knowledge and make new discoveries that reshape our understanding of the universe. stefan.ita...@gmail.com ! And of cause today we also have a flood of idiots with junk science that hides the signal of true unorthodox thinkers. This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area. Indeed, the rise of the internet and social media has made it easier for misinformation and pseudoscience to spread, which can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish between legitimate unorthodox ideas and unsupported claims. This "noise" can make it even more challenging for genuinely innovative ideas to gain recognition and support within the scientific community. To mitigate this issue, it is crucial for researchers, science communicators, and the general public to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking. By understanding the scientific method, recognizing the importance of peer review, and being able to evaluate the quality of evidence, people can better distinguish between credible scientific ideas and those that lack proper support. Furthermore, the scientific community can benefit from fostering an environment that encourages open dialogue and collaboration, as well as creating opportunities for researchers to present and discuss their unconventional ideas in a structured and constructive manner. Conferences, workshops, and other academic forums that focus on exploring alternative models and theories can help facilitate the exchange of ideas and promote the development of new perspectives. By promoting scientific literacy, critical thinking, and open dialogue, we can help ensure that unorthodox ideas with the potential to advance our understanding of the natural world do not get lost in the noise of misinformation and pseudoscience. stefan.ita...@gmail.com I think you missed an important factor to improve this situation. Can you guess what that is? Apologies if I missed an important factor. One possibility could be the role of funding agencies and institutions in supporting diverse and unconventional research projects. By allocating resources to projects that challenge the status quo and explore alternative models or theories, funding agencies can create opportunities for researchers to pursue innovative ideas that might otherwise be overlooked. By providing financial support and resources for such projects, funding agencies can help ensure that unorthodox ideas are given the opportunity to be developed and tested, contributing to a more open and innovative scientific culture. Encouraging funding agencies and institutions to prioritize and invest in diverse research projects can be a significant factor in fostering the exploration of new ideas and theories. stefan.ita...@gmail.com I am teasing, sorry, but I think that using you are developments of you could improve this situation. How could you or your future self help in practice The previous model used in this conversation is unavailable. We've switched you to the latest default model As an AI language model, I can play a role in promoting scientific literacy and encouraging critical thinking by providing accurate information and insights on a wide range of topics related to science, technology, and innovation. By engaging in conversations like this, I can help clarify complex scientific concepts, address misconceptions, and promote a more open and informed discussion of scientific ideas. Furthermore, future developments in AI and machine learning could lead to the development of more advanced tools for scientific research and discovery. For example, AI-based algorithms and models could help researchers analyze and interpret large amounts of data, identify patterns and relationships that might not be apparent through traditional statistical methods, and help design experiments and simulations to test new ideas. In addition, AI-based platforms and tools could help bridge the gap between researchers with different backgrounds and perspectives, facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge-sharing across fields. Such developments could help promote the exploration of new ideas and theories, and contribute to a more open and innovative scientific culture. Overall, AI and machine learning have the potential to make significant contributions to scientific research and discovery, and I am excited to see how these technologies will continue to develop and evolve in the years to come. stefan.ita...@gmail.com And filter out junk to find the gold nugget Indeed, AI and machine learning can play a significant role in filtering out misinformation and pseudoscience from credible scientific information. By analyzing and categorizing vast amounts of data, AI algorithms can help identify patterns and trends that can distinguish between credible and unsupported claims. This can help researchers and the public to access accurate information and distinguish between credible scientific ideas and those that lack proper support. Moreover, AI-based tools can help identify potential biases or errors in scientific studies and experiments, and provide suggestions for improvements or alternative approaches. This can help promote transparency and accuracy in scientific research and reduce the risk of erroneous or misleading results. Overall, AI and machine learning have the potential to significantly improve the quality of scientific research and discovery, by filtering out noise and promoting more accurate and credible scientific information. stefan.ita...@gmail.com Thank you for your time and effort! You're welcome! It was a pleasure to have this conversation with you. If you have any more questions or topics you'd like to discuss, feel free to ask. On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 2:01 AM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Can you analyze a paper at a preprint server >> >> Yes, I can help analyze a preprint paper . . . >> > > I tried to do that. I gave it the URL of two cold fusion papers at > LENR-CANR.org and said "summarize this paper." It was completely wrong! > Title, authors, content . . . I do not know why, but it was a completely > bonkers hallucination. I gave it the first several paragraphs of a paper > and asked for a summary. It basically gave me all of the paragraphs back, > rewritten, not summarized. > > I have had better experiences with other content. > > I asked it two questions about Arthur Clarke's book, "Profiles of the > Future." It got the first one right, but the second answer was a > hallucination. > > > > Here is a disturbing press report about ChatGPT: > > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65202597 > >
