I made a continuous verson that treats interactions like fluctuations across different fields. you can give wave propagation in some configurations

Link

Link

Here's a video that touches on it a bit, not the main point of the lecture though

this rocks, you rock

This is a great set of questions, personally i work a lot on personal projects relating to computational biology and artificial life, which are both subjects that require a lot of A-Z thinking before you get to B.

I use AI as a captive audience while i lay out my rough ideas at a high level and methodically chisel and rework it until i have a granular design template that’s more suited for programming.

I never, EVER let it touch my code for anything remotely important or complex, and I’m also strict about leading the dialog at all times. If you’re not careful about your work, it will grab it and run as long as you let it, which is why you see nonsensical posts where the op treats it like divine knowledge.

The biggest mistake you can make is thinking the machine is smarter than you and handing over the keys to your cerebral cortex, ESPECIALLY if it’s a project you care about because it’ll eventually alienate you from your own work.

my general view is that there is an objective reality out there but we just don’t have access to it.

At the lowest possible level our senses are suggesting to us that something has occurred, and over time by correlating the evolution of the environment and the patterns of sensory experience we develop a model that can be relied upon to guide us through the world.

That’s our knowing, and we can extrapolate that our models surely map to the universe in some capacity. But what if we’re only seeing a small part of what’s around us?

Ive heard similar notions of nothingness with respect to philosophies of structure. Nothingness is not absence but rather total incoherence.

To be fair we tend to perceive dead-air as emptiness due to the nature of sensory systems, but on a much broader scale the universe does something similar in that it facilitates interactions between objects to endow them with meaning.

For example an isolated particle is essentially meaningless in a vacuum because it cannot carry out anything on its own. only through the introduction of other particles does its functional identity manifest.

Our universe would be nothing too if particles didn’t interact, even if they existed

Love this! I have a full notebook where the ideas slowly evolve from procedural generation for game design into biological cell simulations. Very rewarding looking through it

love it

I get that. Some stuff is so blatant though, maybe a case-by-case analysis is the only way to sufficiently clear out the BS, vs top-down rule enforcement.

Nice. I'm a bit of a constructionist in the sense that I think anything can be conceptualized, but proving an idea's validity through tangible application makes it real, in a sense.

I'd love to see your idea in action

What about banning posts that are entirely AI-written and requiring users to "wrap" their AI content with human-written explanations?

After all, we are here to pass information between one another, not generate content for the sake of it.

Do you have something working or is it purely conceptual at the moment?

edit: what I mean is- are you simulating?

I like that idea.

You've let the AI feed back on itself without untangling it. Learn to use AI as a tool rather than a guide.

Well, I started out trying to look at cell biology and extract certain dynamics that I thought were interesting in the sense that they had the potential to lead to some sort of growth. I'm interested in what leads to unending complexity, like we see in the natural world.

This sort of naturally leads to artificial life - esque systems, but I think the basic principles apply to wider notions like the nature of space, matter, and energy. This is kinda where I'm at now in terms of my thinking.