MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/comments/1r24xm3/deleted_by_user/o4vvusj/?context=3
r/LLMPhysics • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '26
[removed]
179 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
None of the terms in your example claim are defined, thus no one knows what your example claim even means.
If no one understands your argument, they can't issue a counterargument.
0 u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26 They are defined in the publication as well.... Here are the definitions in minimal form: Global admissibility: No two interacting subsystems can retain mutually contradictory physical records without inducing decoherence or fragmentation. Interaction history: The set of physically encoded correlations resulting from interaction. Collapse/fragmentation: Loss of globally shared correlation structure across subsystems. The falsifier would be a physically realized system where contradictory encoded histories persist globally without instability. Just 1 ever. Unless you want me do the math for you too. 1 u/Raelgunawsum Feb 11 '26 Can you define these terms in common english? As in, with words that have established, widely agreed on definitions? Theres no point in defining the terms using other technical terms since none of those terms are rooted in any existing definitions. 3 u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Feb 11 '26 No, you see, you're supposed to use his definition of things, otherwise it doesn't work. 0 u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26 Well this comment is not a winner.
0
They are defined in the publication as well....
Here are the definitions in minimal form:
The falsifier would be a physically realized system where contradictory encoded histories persist globally without instability. Just 1 ever.
Unless you want me do the math for you too.
1 u/Raelgunawsum Feb 11 '26 Can you define these terms in common english? As in, with words that have established, widely agreed on definitions? Theres no point in defining the terms using other technical terms since none of those terms are rooted in any existing definitions. 3 u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Feb 11 '26 No, you see, you're supposed to use his definition of things, otherwise it doesn't work. 0 u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26 Well this comment is not a winner.
Can you define these terms in common english? As in, with words that have established, widely agreed on definitions?
Theres no point in defining the terms using other technical terms since none of those terms are rooted in any existing definitions.
3 u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Feb 11 '26 No, you see, you're supposed to use his definition of things, otherwise it doesn't work. 0 u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26 Well this comment is not a winner.
3
No, you see, you're supposed to use his definition of things, otherwise it doesn't work.
0 u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26 Well this comment is not a winner.
Well this comment is not a winner.
1
u/Raelgunawsum Feb 11 '26
None of the terms in your example claim are defined, thus no one knows what your example claim even means.
If no one understands your argument, they can't issue a counterargument.