@reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
I get your point — if we don’t know what it actually achieves, it can feel meaningless to discuss.
But I think this isn’t just philosophy, it’s physics.
Most people assume that reality already exists independently, and rarely question that assumption.
What this paper is trying to do is to uncover the mechanism by which reality itself is generated.
@alzymologist@sopuli.xyz
I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.
However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.
If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.
@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org
If the previous link didn’t open, please use this one instead.
@farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works
“The hypothesis in this video is derived from experimental data presented in the original paper. If you’d like, I can share it with you—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to read it.
@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org
Thanks for your comment. The content is based on the original paper, not the LLM itself. Here is the source:
@aldhissla@piefed.world
Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.
What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.
That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.
As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.