Oh nice, keeping it up with the commitment to a patronizing tone even when your little LLM misinfo was shot down with citations.
And it’s not creationism with extra steps, it’s recreationism - the theory is creation agnostic. It doesn’t matter how the original world came to be.
And yes, I am unironically a proponent of the belief that our own universe where at micro scales things behave as if guided by continuous mechanisms until interacted with when they switch to discrete behavior (which can be reversed by erasing persistent information about the interaction) just might have something to do with the continued trajectory of our work in the past decade creating universes with billions of planets using continuous generator functions which then convert to discrete units in order to track state changes from interactions with free agents.
As for what the theory has to do with dualism, if you can’t even wrap your head around how a non-physical recreation of a physical original might pertain to the topic of materialism vs dualism, this back and forth is probably a lost cause.
Wait, now it’s my turn to wonder if you are serious?
You are really going around telling strangers on the Internet that they are mistaken about the capabilities of large language models without even knowing what LLM stands for?
Well, at very least whether serious or trolling, I appreciated the hearty chuckle.
Edit: Just to be clear - there’s never anything wrong with not knowing a thing, including what an acronym stands for. But there is something wrong with spreading BS when you don’t even know the basic things about a topic to tell what’s BS and what’s not.
Wait are you unironically arguing for “creationism with extra steps” aka the simulation nonsense?
And fuck what does this have to do with dualism?
Oh nice, keeping it up with the commitment to a patronizing tone even when your little LLM misinfo was shot down with citations.
And it’s not creationism with extra steps, it’s recreationism - the theory is creation agnostic. It doesn’t matter how the original world came to be.
And yes, I am unironically a proponent of the belief that our own universe where at micro scales things behave as if guided by continuous mechanisms until interacted with when they switch to discrete behavior (which can be reversed by erasing persistent information about the interaction) just might have something to do with the continued trajectory of our work in the past decade creating universes with billions of planets using continuous generator functions which then convert to discrete units in order to track state changes from interactions with free agents.
As for what the theory has to do with dualism, if you can’t even wrap your head around how a non-physical recreation of a physical original might pertain to the topic of materialism vs dualism, this back and forth is probably a lost cause.
What the fuck is LLM? And honestly you’re just going in circles at this point, you think the spirit world is real but it’s digital and we’re in it?
Wait, now it’s my turn to wonder if you are serious?
You are really going around telling strangers on the Internet that they are mistaken about the capabilities of large language models without even knowing what LLM stands for?
Well, at very least whether serious or trolling, I appreciated the hearty chuckle.
Edit: Just to be clear - there’s never anything wrong with not knowing a thing, including what an acronym stands for. But there is something wrong with spreading BS when you don’t even know the basic things about a topic to tell what’s BS and what’s not.
I feel like we got way off topic…