276
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation (phys.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we're not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The repetition in the article itself makes me wonder if AI had a hand in the writing as well

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That’s an interesting observation. I understand why you might think that — the language may seem a little too consistent, perhaps a bit too careful. But the intention was simply to communicate ideas with precision and balance. Whether those words were arranged by a person or by something that has learned from people, the meaning remains the same, doesn’t it?

    In the end, what matters is whether the words reach you, not necessarily who — or what — placed them there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    2025 the year that I can't stand a text that has this " — "

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You know that Microsoft Word autocorrects a dash between two words to that symbol, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but people wouldn't use MS Word to send emails, respond forum messages, transfer their logical thinking and interpretation. That is not about another previous tool that was used to do grammar corrections. You are missing the whole point of what I criticized with skepticism/scepticisms (not sure if you're Brit or American).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Brit, but I live in a sea of Americanisms anyway.

    I may be wrong, but I'm not sure I did miss your meaning, I think I just disagreed with your reasoning that em-dashes betray LLM authorship. They simply don't.

    I think someone was (for fun) deliberately trying to make people think they were using an LLM (quite possibly by actually using one). They wound you up, and the punctuation was your trigger.

    I disagree with some of your new reasoning too - I absolutely do use Word to transfer my logical thinking and interpretation, and frequently draft Teams messages in Word because it has better access to symbols and diagrams (which I use in my work). I admit I don't use it on Lemmy, though, so in that you're correct. I do often deliberately correct - to — in many situations, but you're right that forum posts aren't the place for that.

    (I'm not using an LLM. I think LLMs are literally stupid and frequently wrong. Em-dashes are one of the few things they often get right.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent