Is this a misunderstanding of what the double slit experiment actually means, or am I misinterpreting it? If this is based on the idea that reality changes strictly as a result of a conscious observer existing and it is somehow related to consciousness, etc, that is not accurate.
I learned this years ago from Philip Ball, one of the editors of Nature. There have been other scientists helping to clear up the confusion recently, though.
Well, Nima has shown that space-time is emergent from higher geometry like he amplituhedron and is not the fundamental basis of reality. Then Hoffman suggests that conscious agents could plausibly be the substrate through his category theoretic work. It's not a misunderstanding of the double slit experiment. (I think that was a talking point for a long time amongst hippies.) The interpretation that wave function collapse requires a conscious agent would be consistent with this idea though, and also consistent with simulation theory.
Nima is a theoretical physicist and many of them have diverged away from hard science. Hard science needs to connect and relate back to classical physics mathematically and ideally have a way of being tested. Not all theoretical physics ever gets there, probably most don't. The best adjusted theoretical physicists are aiming to expand on our understanding of classical physics which we know to be useful and true to the best of our knowledge as opposed to coming up with entirely new untestable theories of physics that are themselves based on top of untested theories.
Psychology is also a soft science, so while clinical psychology can be useful when it is grounded in real instances of human behavior, theoretical psychology is on the softer end of an already soft spectrum of science.
Simulation theory isn't very convincing and it's really just the opposite end of the spectrum of people demonstrating proof of god. Both types of arguments are almost universally logically flawed. It doesn't prove or disprove them, it's just bad logic.
Just as the amplitudes program suggests that spacetime itself may be an emergent structure rather than the fundamental substrate of reality [1], the computational theory of mind may be mistaking an emergent representation for the source of consciousness. A more fundamental theory must therefore treat neural computation as an emergent interface within conscious-agent relations, rather than as the mechanism that generates consciousness.
Even the loosest, "multiply realizable" version of computationalism this entry lays out still needs something physical to run on like neurons, silicon, spacetime, whatever. Problem is, natural selection was never selecting for accurate perception of that substrate, just for fitness payoffs [2].
So computationalism has the order backwards: you can't generate a mind by computing over a brain when the brain, like any object in spacetime, is just a species-specific icon evolution gave you to see, not the hardware underneath it.
I can prove things are the way they are outside my mind's perception of them, through the use of extra sensory devices.
Even in a Donald Hoffman esque icon:hardware situation - and I think he said - "I don't take the icon literally, but I do take it seriously" meaning that even though it's an illusion, it still performs the function, I have trouble with mind preceding matter.
It's the same trouble I have with human-like intelligence preceding worlds.
People come out of worlds, not the other way around.
Cursor is saying we need to get improve the harness and tooling, but the models are getting better. One would have to assume that will continue and that cheaper/smaller models will continue to become even more useful.
Sorry you did not like that part! All I was trying to express was that even though this thing is nice and shiny, it is a tool in the end so if modifying it would make it serve that purpose better, one should not be scared to do so. I wasn't trying to give a definition, but perhaps I should rephrase that. Thanks!
Some people would like to pretend means of production are holy assets you're supposed to value and trade (INVEST!!! making value is for losers and _these_ workers), when it's just a consummable that should serve a purpose right now.
A computer is a tool and customizing the case is not unheard of.
Thank you for desmystifying the Mac.
Users know best.
