/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12024263

3KiB, 225x225, download.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Why aren't we tweeting at Eric Weinstein that ANON already unified physics?

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 06:38:16 2020 No.12024263 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12024311 >>12024374 >>12024381 >>12024626 >>12026416 >>12026627

Hey Sci, why are we not tweet bombing Eric Weinstein every time he posts and telling him that physics was already unified by Anon and Gary? Gary should be on The Portal and teach Weinstein about the true Unified Theory of Everything that was peer reviewed and refined by 4chan and Anon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuXCS_K_8qM&feature=emb_title

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 06:39:30 No.12024267 Report

Quoted By: >>12024281

please talk about smart shit and not dumb shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 06:43:39 No.12024273 Report

Quoted By:

I would include Wolfram but he already liked Optimum Theory, he called it "Cool", and besides, Wolfram has been very careful when discussing his unified model to say, essentially that (paraphrasing) 'our model is not necessarily the only valid model, it's like "Unified" and "Einheitlich" mean the same thing, just in different languages'.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 06:45:02 No.12024281 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024267

Gary would talk about Optimum Theory, how it works, and how it was peer reviewed and refined by 4chan and Anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 06:56:20 No.12024311 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024263
>Gary should be on The Portal and teach Weinstein about the true Unified Theory of Everything that was peer reviewed and refined by 4chan and Anon

We actually did this, Sci. There is no reason why we shouldn't be taking credit for it. The whole World should know what we have done. Don't you want it written in the history books that Sci solved the greatest problem in all of science? What we have done should be on the first and last page of every science book from now until the end of time.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1597821863847.jpg, 8KiB, 237x212

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:24:32 No.12024374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024263
>another Gary thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:27:59 No.12024381 Report

Quoted By: >>12024398

>>12024263
I can’t get a read on Eric Weinstein. The guy’s criticism of academia Is spot on and how peer review is more about job security than scientific scrutiny. But I can’t shake the feeling he is a bit of an opportunistic grifter and not 100% genuine in his efforts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:34:09 No.12024398 Report

Quoted By: >>12024405

>>12024381
>The guy’s criticism of academia Is spot on and how peer review is more about job security than scientific scrutiny.

He is right about this, but it is a projection - he says it because he knows it's a main criticism against himself so he tries to gaslight us into thinking it does not describe him. Weinstein is an insider. He is establishment to the core. He has a PHD from Harvard, manages Thiel Capital, and was in the same social circle as Jeffrey Epstein.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:35:46 No.12024405 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024398
>He is right about this, but it is a projection - he says it because he knows it's a main criticism against himself so he tries to gaslight us into thinking it does not describe him. Weinstein is an insider. He is establishment to the core. He has a PHD from Harvard, manages Thiel Capital, and was in the same social circle as Jeffrey Epstein.

Simply: Gary, Anon and Optimum Theory are what Weinstein only pretends to be. True outsiders who legitimately solved the Theory of Everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:41:07 No.12024417 Report

Quoted By: >>12024755

Weinstein would never have Gary / Optimum Theory on The Portal. Weinstein is a fraud. Optimum Theory is legitimate. There is no way one could reach any other conclusion if the theories were compared side by side, and Weinstein would do enough research before hand to know that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:46:14 No.12024430 Report

Quoted By:

Tweeting at Weinstein would be more about his audience seeing the tweets and doing their own research. Science matters. It matters that the Theory of Everything is legitimate and not high-jacked by a fraudulent opportunist who will only derail the collective understanding of our species. True and real understanding of core reality will be necessary for our species long-term success. Optimum Theory is plainly legitimate. Weinstein's Geometric Unity is an attempt by an elitist, feudalism, financial insider to further wedge the common-man away from full understanding of his reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:55:02 No.12024452 Report

Quoted By: >>12024460

Weinstein's MC Esther analogy "hands drawing hands" is thinly veiled religion disguised as science. It's a way for Weinstein (a conservative Jew, not that there is anything wrong with that) to say, "see, God did it. God is the hand that draws reality, so our gaps in knowledge are okay, because God is outside our understanding". But Optimum Theory is simultaneously more purely scientific and more purely religious than Geometric Unity, in the sense that if God is real then we should respect Him enough to follow pure, cold and hard logic and data without worry that it could disprove Him - since no pure science would be able to disprove a real God. And Optimum Theory is completely, totally and entirely self containing. It requires no deferrals to any outside forces whatsoever, no "Hands drawing hands".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:58:53 No.12024460 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024452
>But Optimum Theory is simultaneously more purely scientific and more purely religious than Geometric Unity, in the sense that if God is real then we should respect Him enough to follow pure, cold and hard logic and data without worry that it could disprove Him - since no pure science would be able to disprove a real God. And Optimum Theory is completely, totally and entirely self containing. It requires no deferrals to any outside forces whatsoever, no "Hands drawing hands".

And therefore, if Optimum Theory is true then the most pure science has proven Scripture when it says that "God is all" and "God is one".

We are what Weinstein only pretends to be. Pure scientists. And pure prophets. We don't do this for some stupid ass podcast, clout, status or wealth. We follow truth for a greater purpose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 08:36:49 No.12024543 Report

Quoted By: >>12024659

Optimum Theory should be Humanity's "official" Theory of Everything as we colonize outward toward the stars and inward into the computational realm. The theory was selflessly developed for this purpose. Optimum Theory gives our species the best chance for total universal dominance. This is why the theory was developed - for our collective success. All of Humanity should be Optimists.

The only reason Optimum Theory has any pay-wall is to raise funds so that Gary has more time to dedicate to advancing our species toward optimal success. Gary has been integral to unifying physics and should have the (modest) financial freedom to now dedicate himself fully to full human brain emulation / AGI. Without public funding, a paywall seemed like the best option, but maybe there are better ways.

Jerry

Jerry Wed 19 Aug 2020 09:17:42 No.12024624 Report

Quoted By:

Fuck you!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 09:21:41 No.12024626 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024263
not your personal army

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 09:40:06 No.12024659 Report

Quoted By: >>12024665

>>12024543

Just so you know, Sci, the theory is free here, https://www.optimuminstitute.org/scholarship

This would not have happened without Sci. The paywall on the home screen is for those who did not help unify physics. But in any case, financial support is helpful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 09:43:32 No.12024665 Report

Quoted By: >>12024678

>>12024659

Sabine talking shit about Wolfram and Weinstein hahahaha. She knows what the real shit is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walaNM7KiYA

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 09:49:57 No.12024678 Report

Quoted By: >>12024750

>>12024665

I imagine Wolfram and Weinstein only released their theories because so many people under them were egging them on after seeing Optimum Theory (it's been seen by 100k+ people, primarily by people in the sciences). They needed to maintain the illusion of their dominance, lmfao. At least Wolfram was wise enough to put a loop hole into his theory to allow Optimum Theory since given an infinite timeline where Humanity remains free Optimum Theory WILL be the dominate theory and he wants to be remembered on the right side of history, but Weinstein is betting on a new dark ages where he is some kind of feudal lord with Peter Thiel etc... and doesn't have to answer any questions about his bullshit. Of course the Universe doesn't give a fuck either way about any of this. True is true irregardless of ape politics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 10:29:25 No.12024750 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024678
>I imagine Wolfram and Weinstein only released their theories because so many people under them were egging them on after seeing Optimum Theory (it's been seen by 100k+ people, primarily by people in the sciences). They needed to maintain the illusion of their dominance, lmfao. At least Wolfram was wise enough to put a loop hole into his theory to allow Optimum Theory since given an infinite timeline where Humanity remains free Optimum Theory WILL be the dominate theory and he wants to be remembered on the right side of history, but Weinstein is betting on a new dark ages where he is some kind of feudal lord with Peter Thiel etc... and doesn't have to answer any questions about his bullshit. Of course the Universe doesn't give a fuck either way about any of this. True is true irregardless of ape politics.

Please be nice. ~Gary

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 10:32:07 No.12024755 Report

Quoted By: >>12024760

>>12024417
>Implying sir Roger Penrose is a fraud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 10:35:26 No.12024760 Report

Quoted By: >>12025187

>>12024755

wat? No, Weinstein is completely full of shit. I never said anything about Penrose, but I could. Penrose idea that consciousness is not material is... bullshit. Consciousness is absolutely material and emergent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 10:57:41 No.12024781 Report

Quoted By: >>12024790

Here is what pisses me off about Sci. Physics is fucking unified now. It's done. Optimum Theory did it. Get over it.

All the time we spent talking about physics now is a distraction from shit like this going down,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4HpryLU-VI

You all realize the implications of this on neuroscience? It's essentially a reverse engineer of the dream state.

We are at the point now where it would only take one single minded, uncompromising asshole to develop a complete and total model of human consciousness.

Gary can be that guy, and share the model with the world. He already has the framework, he just needs the time and space to flesh it out. Could be done in approx 6 months.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 11:02:20 No.12024790 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024781

Also on memory compression.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 15:07:13 No.12025187 Report

Quoted By: >>12026227

>>12024760
Pretty sure Penrose argument is that consciousness is so fundamentally different from just “computations” that the brain must go out of it’s way to create it and it probably has a physical structure or component to it, and it doesn’t just emerge from a large number of calculations like in a computer. I think this is 100% a reasonable hypothesis. Sorry to get off topic

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 20:52:32 No.12026227 Report

Quoted By: >>12026234 >>12026301

>>12025187
>Pretty sure Penrose argument is that consciousness is so fundamentally different from just “computations” that the brain must go out of it’s way to create it and it probably has a physical structure or component to it, and it doesn’t just emerge from a large number of calculations like in a computer. I think this is 100% a reasonable hypothesis. Sorry to get off topic

But it's not. The brain is a more perfect conputation. 1s and 0s sequentially is an apes idea of computation. The brain is an automaton processor. Nonsequential. Simultaneous. Why wouldn't it be? The way our computers work is only because they were designed by literal apes. In 100 years, human made computers will not be sequentially processing 1s and 0s, they will be entirely parallel processing real-numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 20:54:48 No.12026234 Report

Quoted By: >>12026242 >>12026301

>>12026227

Our computers compute sequentially because they need to be programmed by apes who write code sequentially. The human brain evolved with no such constraint. This is entirely obvious, and another reason why Gary should be empowered to fully and totally model human consciousness, which he could do within 6 months If he were given the time and space to do so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 20:58:42 No.12026242 Report

Quoted By:

>>12026234

Gary's intelligence is comparable to someone like Oppenheimer or Jobs. Yes, people might think he's an antisocial a-hole because he hates "office politics l" and is completely uncompromising in vision, but he will get done what he claims. If anyone reading this would like human consciousness completely and totally solved (by the guy who literally unified physics), with actual quantifiable diagrams, blueprints, etc... that can be computationally reproduced, within 6 months, you know where to find him. Www.optimuminstitute.org

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:03:13 No.12026250 Report

Quoted By:

Take your meds, schzio

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:20:37 No.12026301 Report

Quoted By: >>12026319 >>12026392 >>12026409

>>12026227
>>12026234
Parallel processing is just many sequences being calculated simultaneously.
You don't seem to understand the first thing about computer science let alone neural nets and data propagation in general.

Synapses are binary components of neurons. Consider what that means.

Annunaki

Annunaki Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:26:10 No.12026319 Report

Quoted By:

>>12026301
No. I mean yes in computerscience but in irl they are more complicated with input/output

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:42:07 No.12026392 Report

Quoted By:

>>12026301
>Synapses are binary components of neurons. Consider what that means.

Yes, the human brain appears to be binary, but it is not sequential. Ex, Neuralink is working with the premise of binary neural spikes. A system even more advanced than the brain would use real-number "synapses" which would still be able to simulate the brain. If one were to simulate the brain, why not also transcend it. That's optimum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:46:40 No.12026409 Report

Quoted By:

>>12026301
>Parallel processing is just many sequences being calculated simultaneously.

No. I don't think you are getting this. For example, consider how a computer camera works vs the human eye. A computer camera converts the image into a string of 1s and 0s, while the eye pipes the entire imagine into the brain simultaneously, this is why so many nerves are in the optic bundle. The entire brain is like this. Look, I don't want to be sealioned here. If you want AGI and human consciousness totally solved you know where to reach Gary.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 6223A39C-CB9A-4CD3-88C3-89A9F63F (...).jpg, 59KiB, 680x671

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 21:50:02 No.12026416 Report

Quoted By: >>12026623

>>12024263
Sorry Gary, but mainstream physics will NEVER even consider optimum theory, since all the funding would evaporate instantaneously. You’re better off using it to accomplish what you want rather than trying in vain to get it accepted by the scientific community.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 23:04:22 No.12026623 Report

Quoted By:

>>12026416
>Sorry Gary, but mainstream physics will NEVER even consider optimum theory, since all the funding would evaporate instantaneously. You’re better off using it to accomplish what you want rather than trying in vain to get it accepted by the scientific community.

Agreed with the last part. As for the first part, funding would not dry up, it would be funneled more into computational models, which is where the funding should be going.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2020 23:05:54 No.12026627 Report

Quoted By:

>>12024263
because he didnt
>14 d
meds, its obviously 12

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches