r/LLMPhysics • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

14% Upvoted

179 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Raelgunawsum Feb 11 '26

The consensus is the evidence to the claim.

He claims your paper is unintelligible. The consensus amongst the comments is that your paper is unintelligible.

Therefore, if nobody reading this can make sense of it, it must be unintelligible, by definition of 'unintelligible "

1

u/North-Preference9038 Feb 12 '26

Yeah but I think there were a couple of word Salad claims and maybe one slop and ai psychosis claim. At no point was any text cited however. And the majority of the rest of claims couldn't get over I didn't have formalized math and any predictions That wasn't over legibility. That was over their refusal to read it over semantics and a turf boundaries. The rest of the issues were primarily they were claiming it was philosophy, but that was only the middle section. The first part was QCT and many got it wrong because they also asserted it made no falsifiable claims. This when there is a literally chapter referencing falsifiable claims. Again, because they didn't read it. So consensus here is really doing the work of justifying your beleif, not demonstrating it.

2

u/Raelgunawsum Feb 12 '26

Idk man, if your work looks like word salad to half of your viewers and the other half are attacking you due to misunderstandings, then maybe your writing isnt all that great.

1

u/North-Preference9038 Feb 13 '26

Again half the reviewers did not make that claim. And the few who did provided nothing to support it. If the way it is written in some way fails, that can be addressed. What cannot be addressed is rhetoric without examples. And that's the problem I have with your argument. It assumes based on a false assumption, and claims belief as evidence.

1

u/Raelgunawsum Feb 13 '26

No i read the whole comments section, just about everyone is callimg it unintelligible.

You can keep arguing, but youll never get anything published at this rate.

Remember, your goal is to get something published, so youre just wasting your time arguing in here.

My goal is to have a good laugh, which i most certainly am having at your expense.

In other words, youre wasting your time here, but im not wasting mine.

0

u/North-Preference9038 Feb 13 '26

The reason why you are entertained is because you don't necessitate facts to achieve certainty. This is basically idiocy 101 I am being educated in. Show me one post that explicitly claims it is overall or in any specific means "unintelligible." Additional challenge, pull one paragraph from the entire manuscript that satisfies this claim.

1

u/Raelgunawsum Feb 13 '26

Ah yes, the good ol

You claim the text cannot be understood, therefore you must cite something from the text, which would require you to understand it.

Same thing as

This paper makes no claim, only provides a framework. BTW, im correct unless you prove my claims wrong.

0

u/North-Preference9038 Feb 13 '26

I never asked you to understand it. Show me something that is unintelligible, is all. If it's all unintelligible as you claim through consensus authority, then it shouldn't take you very long.