Archaeology of the New Testament

NO SYSTEM can evaluate its own output.

TO Gurantee reliability, output must be evaluated by a different system ... and on and on infintely recursively.


And AI cannot even evaluate the outputs of its own sub actions.

IT gets dumber and dumber the more it goes because it takes is OWN AI SLOP AS TRUTH.

AI generates so much output it can not be realistically evaluated by humans.

there is no solultion.

Plus AI is taught to lie by training it on propaganda.

whole movement fucked.

all supporters stupid.
 
Its just a great surveillance system and can do a lot of great tasks.

its is a great tool.

but you must evaluate the output youreself. trusting it is stupid.

but they mostly want it for surveillance.

the overvaluation is off the charts fucking stupid.

giant bubble.
 
IBDaMann said:
We've already covered this. You aren't saying anything.


... yet you pretend we don't have any such limitation. You claim omniscience.

You don't get to claim that what is unknown is somehow known by pointing to the laws of Nature. The universe doesn't care that we know far less than a tiny fraction of a miniscule percentage of a mere flake of a infinitesimal speck of a tiny portion of the small amount of it that we can notice, and won't be divulging any additional information for our convenience. Events will still occur randomly and the distribution of that which we observe will continue to pass every test of randomness, as you have noticed.
Click to expand...
Every atom, every electron, quark, photon, and boson in the entire universe is behaving in accordance with the physical laws and rules of the cosmos, whether any human is there or not to measure it.

No rational and sane person would say that this kind of universe is unorganized, random, and arbitrary.
 
IBDaMann said:
Now it is. You just changed it to the correct statement, except instead of "speed", it should read "momentum."
Click to expand...
That's what my post said, dummy. First you complained about that post and said I was incorrect, now you're backtracking-flip flopping and saying I was correct 🤣
👇​
Cypress said:
The uncertainty principle says you can either accurately measure position or momentum at the subatomic scale, but not both at the same time. That is not proof of an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Every atom, every electron, quark, photon, and boson in the entire universe is behaving in accordance with the physical laws and rules of the cosmos, whether any human is there or not to measure it.

No rational and sane person would say that this kind of universe is unorganized, random, and arbitrary.
Click to expand...
this doesnt mean very much is predictable though.

the universe is unorganized in any meaningful sense, despite physical properties being observed and documented.

this is why AI cannot meaningfully predict everything accurately..

see MInority Report.

see godel
 
Jerry Mathers said:
a cell phone cannot predict everything in the universe.
Click to expand...
... nor can a hammer. Why do tools suddenly need to meet an impossible and irrelevant standard?

Jerry Mathers said:
godel says no.
Click to expand...
Godel is dead; he isn't saying anything these days.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is simply a specialization of Cantor's diagonalization theorem. It says that there will always be a true statement that your system cannot prove/conclude. So what? Humanity has survived with this being the case.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
this doesnt mean very much is predictable though.

the universe is unorganized in any meaningful sense, despite physical properties being observed and documented.
Click to expand...
I do not accept any diversion attempts trying to change the subject from the physical universe, to the psychology of one hominid species on one small planet.

Science would not even be possible in an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe. The fundamental premise of even doing science is that the physical universe is ultimately rationally intelligible, organized, and predictable.
 
Cypress said:
That's what my post said, dummy.
Click to expand...
Nope. As always, you wait for me to give you the correct answer so you can repeat it back to me and declare that I somehow didn't know it until you informed me.

Cypress said:
First you complained about that post and said I was incorrect
Click to expand...
Yes, I pointed out yet another one of your errors.

Cypress said:
, now you're backtracking-flip flopping and saying I was correct
Click to expand...
... now, after you corrected your error.
 
Cypress said:
Every atom, every electron, quark, photon, and boson in the entire universe is behaving in accordance with the physical laws and rules of the cosmos,
Click to expand...
OK, assuming there are quarks and bosons, so what? What test of randomness does the universe fail?

Cypress said:
No rational and sane person would say that this kind of universe is unorganized, random, and arbitrary.
Click to expand...
No rational adult would deny the universe is a random dust cloud. You are not rational.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
its is a great tool.
Click to expand...
... just like a hammer.

Jerry Mathers said:
but you must evaluate the output youreself. trusting it is stupid.
Click to expand...
One should inspect all nails to ensure each one is fully driven and flush. Trusting without looking is stupid.

Jerry Mathers said:
but they mostly want it for surveillance.
Click to expand...
Hammers? How?

Jerry Mathers said:
the overvaluation is off the charts fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
... for hammers? How?
 
IBDaMann said:
... just like a hammer.


One should inspect all nails to ensure each one is fully driven and flush. Trusting without looking is stupid.


Hammers? How?


... for hammers? How?
Click to expand...
humans cannot possibly examine all output of AI. that defeats the point.

and we're being asked to trust fully its predictions without FULLY HUMAN double check.

the valuation is off the charts super gay, like libertarian fascist technocratic humanity hating bitcoin spooks.

you're analogy is fallacious.

and your anal is felllatio'ed.
 
Cypress said:
I do not accept any diversion attempts trying to change the subject from the physical universe, to the psychology of one hominid species on one small planet.
Click to expand...
nobody's doing that.



Cypress said:
Science would not even be possible in an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe. The fundamental premise of even doing science is that the physical universe is ultimately rationally intelligible, organized, and predictable.
Click to expand...
the universe is random even though matter has properties.

no computer could figure out the future like you fucktoids think, even with infinite"Compute" <illiterate term.

the Data center build out bubble sucks cocks.

godel.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
and this is an argument to popularity. a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Being a scientist requires a belief that the universe is organized and rationally intelligible. Science wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

It is very noteworthy and compelling that on one side of the debate are me, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking,

And on the other side of the debate are you, IntoTheNight, and IBdmann.

That says it all right there.
 
IBDaMann said:
... nor can a hammer. Why do tools suddenly need to meet an impossible and irrelevant standard?
Click to expand...

I'm just countering cypress asinine claims.
IBDaMann said:
Godel is dead; he isn't saying anything these days.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is simply a specialization of Cantor's diagonalization theorem. It says that there will always be a true statement that your system cannot prove/conclude. So what? Humanity has survived with this being the case.
Click to expand...
it also says a system cannot verify its own output.

AI cannot be trusted.

well you can trust it, but you would be stupid.





you mu
 
Cypress said:
Being a scientist requires a belief that the universe is organized and rationally intelligible.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't.
Cypress said:
Science wouldn’t be possible otherwise.
Click to expand...
yes it would.
Cypress said:
It is very noteworthy and compelling that on one side of the debate are me, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking,

And on the other side of the debate are you, IntoTheNight, and IBdmann.

That says it all right there.
Click to expand...
no. that's an appeal to authority and popularity.

You're suffering from Totalitarian Scientism Disorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top