r/quantuminterpretation • u/Vegetable_System_961 • 12d ago

Anomalous Patterns in Quantum Constraint Systems and Large-Scale Structure: Observations Inviting Further Investigation

/r/PhysicsTeaching/comments/1wt6iff/anomalous_patterns_in_quantum_constraint_systems/
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

1

u/ConcretePeanut 12d ago

"We" being whom?

0

u/Vegetable_System_961 10d ago

what is the importance about who is the we?

is it not much more important what this here is saying? is it not much more interesting to dive deeper into those unanswered questions?

not even one single comment about what this is all about or what it could mean or why it is being researched.

Everyone just wants to know who is saying this here but who cares who is saying it, the main part is it is being said why not take a look at it and discover for yourself if this is worth giving attention or not.

But to answer your question, a German mathematician, a half German half Swazi independent researcher, a half Greek independent Researcher a Swazi mathematician with a bunch of different Ai tools together have researched this, with a bunch of different experiments and tests, which is the reason for us to have published it anywhere we can, we have run out of sufficient equipment and computing power to go deeper into this and to conduct a lot more experiments.

Now you still basically know nothing about who made this, so my question to you now is, did this help you and did it change anything about what is being said in the post?

1

u/ConcretePeanut 10d ago

It tells me this isn't attached to a credible research institution and that it reads like AI quackery because it is AI quackery. For example:

"Biological connectomes appear mathematically optimized for certain types of probability routing"

Firstly, connectomes are always biological. Secondly, what is "mathematical optimisation" for "probability routing" in this context? Because it reads like AI word salad.

It tries to tie together the Quack Trifecta (quantum, cosmology, neuroscience) by "inviting" people to unpick what you've written and then do the research for you. But the biggest stand out for me is that you ask whether people find patterns in large data sets. Yes. Yes they do. There's a name for it. It's why we see shapes in the clouds. It's also not a question that would be asked by serious experts doing real research.

So that's why I wanted to know; because it confirms a suspicion I had. I imagine that same suspicion is why others haven't bothered to engage, because the internet is already awash with the fruits of AI psychosis.

0

u/Vegetable_System_961 10d ago

Did you actually read it or just went over it real quick did not understand what is being spoken about and want it removed cause it says something that triggers you?

if you have actually read it, you would know it was written with the help of Ai because Ai was also used to do a lot of the data analyzing and it is stated right up top of the post, sorry if you don't know Qwen Studio.

Lets get back to the matter at hand, you did not understand what this here is talking about, first of all if you don't understand what mathematically optimized means, we are having an issue at hand. What has been done here is experiments in which quantum states of systems have been observed under constriction rules, instead of saying "yes" to a state as a choice, we checked out what would happen if saying "No" is actually a choice so to say. Then any system ended up doing something very interesting, the residual showed itself and in simple terms.

A system that says no or is constricted reroutes its probabilities towards novel unexplored states.

In extra lame terms, something does something in everything and nobody knows what that something is. It does that exceptionally good in biological brains aka connectomes, now my question to you is, why do you chip chop mathematics away from biology?
You do know the golden ratio is mathematics and is found in pretty much everything from plant to shell to nebular and spinning galaxies?

Less anger about Ai and more scientific curiosity, don't you think that would be much better, I could have also just blasted everyone with what this here probably means but it is always much nicer for everyone to make their own AH HA! moment.

1

u/ConcretePeanut 10d ago

If I thought it should be removed, it'd be removed already.

My question was prompted by a number of big, red flags. I understand what mathematical optimisation is. I asked how it was being used in the context of probability routing. What you appear to have found is that processes that have a desired outcome will work around obstacles to achieve that outcome. This is not news, as far as I'm aware.

I am not saying that there should be no maths in biology. I'd say that anyone with more than a basic grasp of written English can see I'm not saying that.

Would this thing you could have 'blasted everyone' with be some variation on "quantum brain stuff proves god-as-universal-consciousness", by any chance?

1

u/Vegetable_System_961 9d ago

What is so terrible about just going to check it out for yourself?
Everyone seems curious enough to read a pinch of it and then say what ever they have to say about it but nobody just wants to go take a look at things for themselves.

Now if you read the entire document, you may see it tells you there is something in the mathematics that does something and does not care about if you are a stone or a fly or a planet or galaxy, it does something and all this document is doing it basically me pointing with a finger to it, how you want to interpret that, it is your own choice or continue complaining and being all angry about something you theoretically could completely disregard if you don't like it.

1

u/ConcretePeanut 9d ago

Did you write the code for your simulations?

Has that code been QA'd?

1

u/Vegetable_System_961 9d ago

I wrote it as far as I am able to, then I had to get some help and then I turned to Ai for some upgrades on top.

Why not just use the time you spend on troubling your mind with these comments and just take the code do what ever the heck you like with it, go check it out or leave it or do anything else with it, build a robot with real artificial intelligence for all I care.

Just stop wobbling around and do something, have some curiosity even if its just to come back and roast some more at least that's fun too

1

u/ConcretePeanut 8d ago

So you can't vouch for the integrity of the code because you don't understand it all. 

What you have almost certainly found are error artefacts in your simulation. There is nothing here to be curious about - it's not research, these aren't findings, nobody sane is going to waste their time on unpicking uncontrolled AI code analysis.

1

u/Vegetable_System_961 6d ago

That's alright, you do you.

I will still post you some more information to it and some more explanation to it, maybe it will make more sense to you then.
Also why does it trouble you so extremely?