qnfo

See comment above... Restated:

(1) What is the definition of "AI drivel," and who gets to decide? (2) Can anyone, anonymously, flag anything, for any reason? Is there an appeal process? (3) Who are these moderators that are policing a so-called open forum? (4) How is Lemmy.world any different from a Reddit fiefdom of absolute authority? (5) What is the point of these forums if not to share information? If I do not wish to hear someone's opinion or political rant does that mean I have the right to flag their post for moderation (that would seem to set a dangerous precedent)? (6) Furthermore, is it not the case that history has shown time and time again that popular beliefs are not necessarily correct (ptolemaic epicycles, geocentrism, alchemy, et al)? And at the risk of burning virtual heretics who may, just maybe, have some insight into the next "new" popular beliefs (the standard model was not immediately accepted), should we not favor open and liberal idea exchange?

By the way before I get banned again could these mysterious moderators please point me to a definition of "AI drivel" and how that is objectively verified?

Also could someone please tell me what prompt can recreate such complexity of thought, because I must be using the wrong LLM then. ✌️

Thanks for validating my existence as a human! So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously) say they don't like something and get it removed it seems.

Make no mistake, I am not a MOND apologist (I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is). As you allude, my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation. If these theories made sense other than on paper as math equations we wouldn't be having this discussion. And I would note that no one could possibly argue with the central tenet of my "drivel," which is that there are legitimately shaky bases to both quantum mechanics and legitimized (not legitimate) theories like dark matter and Dirac's equations that led to the preposterous notion of "antimatter" (i.e. "Dirac Sea") and dark matter/energy. How can one claim any kind of superiority with physics when 95% of it can't be explained by your model. Invent a more complex (post-hoc) model say the physicists!

I can add 1 + 1, then subtract 3 and call it a magic number but that doesn't make whatever story I concoct around it any more real, especially when the story (theory) is made up after the math works. That's not science: that is a fraud. It's no different than what a scammer like Bernie Madoff did he made the books look good and then concocted a story about his incredible investment returns. And spare me your ridicule: a key flaw of scientific tunnel vision is failing to look outside your own discipline and see that the same themes reoccur in the wider world, whether you admit it or not.

Call me a nut, but I am most certainly a nut with a 🧠. And I may be wrong often, but mark my words: so too are general relativity and the Big Bang incomplete; and "dark matter" and "antimatter" are such mathematical folly I'd delight in being mocked here today so history will show who the true fools are (hint: I've actually thought about this more than most of you have).

Thanks for the tip about David Tong though. My latest strategy is to co-opt existing physics paradigms by showing how an information theoretic can describe them better than they can describe themselves rather than waste time attempting Pyrrhic rhetorical victories.

It's an honor to be called a "lunatic," better than being ignored 🤣

Perhaps you could put your thoughts in your own words rather than link to others as your rebuttal. If you're going to lean on the standard model while ignoring its numerous failings, it seems equal lunacy to argue with a fellow crazy.