🧵 Why do physicists feel the need to claim everything as physics?
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 15:48:20 UTC No. 16415821
they awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics to Machine Learning to claim it as physics, mind you. what a fucking reach. we can see your tricks from miles away. envy much?
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:02:51 UTC No. 16415837
>>16415821
This is the rock bottom. I thought awarding the Nobel prize for physics to environmentalists was cringe, but they made it worse. Clown world.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:15:19 UTC No. 16415846
Computer science is not about computers and not a science.
Anything to do with computers is electronics. That's physics
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:21:40 UTC No. 16415847
>>16415821
All contributions to the field come from mathematicians, physicists, electrical and computer engineers for a reason.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:23:10 UTC No. 16415849
>>16415821
In principle, everything is physics, including mathematics.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:48:26 UTC No. 16415871
>>16415821
>Why do physicists feel the need to claim everything as physics?
Turf war with maths.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:49:02 UTC No. 16415873
>>16415821
>muh MLL
thinking NNs can generalize to data they weren't trained on is like thinking you can get tomorrow's weather temperature by adding the degree-difference between yesterday and today.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:51:06 UTC No. 16415876
>>16415846
>Anything to do with computers is electronics.
All Turing Machine run on pure MemeMagic. And that's maths.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:36:23 UTC No. 16415956
>>16415849
fuck off
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:49:46 UTC No. 16415973
>>16415821
kek
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:53:29 UTC No. 16415982
>>16415821
Physicists are incredibly insecure, Chemists, Biologists and Mathematicians are much more reasonable when it comes to their fields compared to Physicists.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 19:09:49 UTC No. 16416118
Physicists have been on a 50 year-long dry-spell when it comes to scientific breakthroughs, so the Nobel Committee has started to award that shit to Electrical Engineers, then Environmentalists and Meteologists and now this, fucking computer science.
What a joke of a field. Though it mimics how physics grads themselves end up in shitty software positions.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 19:14:43 UTC No. 16416130
>>16415821
I am an ML scientist but this Nobel prize was cringe af.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 19:36:30 UTC No. 16416164
>>16415821
In this case it is true.
All the mathematics ML is based off of was developed for modeling physical systems.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:04:51 UTC No. 16416318
>>16416164
It's based on Neuroscience you fucking retard
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:12:16 UTC No. 16416337
>>16415821
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phys
They ate us because they ain't us
simple as
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:13:45 UTC No. 16416338
>>16416318
The mathematical models used in neuroscience were invented for condensed matter physics you fucking retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:21:57 UTC No. 16416344
>>16415821
You complain? Mutherfucker, biologists discovered the CRISPR system and they got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:29:39 UTC No. 16416358
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:36:35 UTC No. 16416375
>>16416358
Well yes, and biologists also work in geology departments. But it still unreasonable to either be too obtuse or too reductionist to admit that they are completely different fields, with different frameworks and reach.
Might as well everything be engineering because we have to use and design machines for experiments.
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:10:02 UTC No. 16416439
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 01:13:59 UTC No. 16416666
>>16415821
reminder to scitards that everything, including mathematics, philosophy, and computer science, is physical.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 01:33:38 UTC No. 16416691
>>16415876
>Turing Machine
not a single turing machine exists btw
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 01:36:08 UTC No. 16416693
>>16416666
waste of quads
even physics itself maintains the concept of the virtual i.e. immaterial non-physical
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:21:12 UTC No. 16416746
>>16416691
>not a single turing machine exists btw
That's what makes it maths.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:31:22 UTC No. 16416758
>>16416164
>All the mathematics ML is based off of was developed for modeling physical systems.
right, that’s why we call it a Graphics Card. now back in your code cage Poindexter, I the nipples to be firmer compared to the rest of the boob
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:32:13 UTC No. 16416761
>>16416666
uh no retard, by that logic, everything is just philosophy.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 03:50:52 UTC No. 16416855
>>16415847
You should have to read some of the disgusting code physicists and mathematicians write.
>>16415846
Language evolves to be functional, not pedantic.
Physics is already too big of a field to cram computer science into it.
On top of that it's multidisciplinary, as it spans information theory, computation theory, hardware, software, as well as general understanding of math and physics.
>>16415847
You're just mad that in the time it took your field to slightly modify the unfalsifiable spaghetti theory of everything, random nerds revolutionized the entire world's industry, military, economy, society and now even science itself, as they infiltrate more and more academic spaces.
Give it 10-15 more years. These stupid computer scientists will use their computers to solve your entire field right in front of you.
Admit it. You're an ignorant boomer, too demented to learn C. You look at programmers - dropouts, your very age, relaxing on tropic islands, families set for generations. And you despise them. Because you ain't them. So you come here and seethe.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 04:18:46 UTC No. 16416905
>>16416855
Based
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 05:50:01 UTC No. 16416986
>This is the proverbial foot in door to officially allow A.I. to be used in mass to achieve Nobel Prizes.
I can't fucking wait to see the shit show that's going to occur with computer scientists winning physiology, economics or the literature Nobel awards with A.I.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:18:14 UTC No. 16417013
nobel prizes have been a joke for some time already. They were really a golden-era of science thing
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:43:23 UTC No. 16417029
>>16415821
Yeah, making some crappy neural networks in the 80's is a gigantic reach. Especially when it wasn't some big leap from what other people already did.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:44:10 UTC No. 16417030
>>16415821
To distract people from the fact that modern physics has wasted a generation or two on string theory I assume.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 07:01:59 UTC No. 16417049
>>16415846
This is a dumb meme. Computer science is the study of computation.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:01:24 UTC No. 16417219
>>16415821
Physicists need to be punished, this is a good start, a real humiliation ritual.
Rename the discipline to physical science until they manage to do something nobel worthy.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:23:32 UTC No. 16417237
>>16416855
>You should have to read some of the disgusting code physicists and mathematicians write.
Because they don't give a shit about one off code or code in general. Your people do it too, see code in video games....
>unfalsifiable
lel popper believing retard
>These stupid computer scientists will use their computers to solve your entire field right in front of you.
Typical cs major retard that doesn't even know the basics of cs. Undecidable problems are undecidable
>You look at programmers
We're talking about cs, not monkeys.
>relaxing on tropic islands, families set for generations
Have you seen the tech news for this year? Layoffs, layoffs, layoffs, record C*O bonuses, layoffs, layoffs, layoffs...
>too demented to learn C
Typical cs retard that thinks C is hard and/or low level
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:04:15 UTC No. 16417571
>>16416338
>mathematical models
Fucking irrelevant. The actual break-through and promethean moment when it comes to artificial intelligence is what we have learned from Neuroscience when we realized that designing a thinking machine from a blueprint is a dead end and that we have to emulate the only actual thinking machine we know of and that is the human brain and copy its architecture. Shut up dude. Physicists really are a bunch of obnoxious pricks.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:46:51 UTC No. 16417814
>>16417237
keep crying boomer
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:06:05 UTC No. 16417991
>>16417571
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe read a book faggot.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:07:10 UTC No. 16417993
>>16416338
>The perceptron was invented in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts.[5] The first hardware implementation was Mark I Perceptron machine built in 1957 at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory by Frank Rosenblatt,[6] funded by the Information Systems Branch of the United States Office of Naval Research and the Rome Air Development Center.
They were both computational neuroscientists.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:07:47 UTC No. 16417995
>>16417991
All at my grade seems optimal
I am 6 grades a better book
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:12:12 UTC No. 16418000
>>16415821
I find it's the opposite: Compsci and software people claiming what they do is physics to try and legitimize their shit. I can't count the number of times I've told some ComSci person my background is physics, only for them to immediately go on a diatribe about how all of physics is just logic and blah blah blah.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:13:58 UTC No. 16418008
>>16417991
It's called NEURONAL networks. Not PHYSICAL networks, faggot. The neuro refers to the brain or nervous system. Something you'd know if you actually had one. Apparently it's all black holes and vacuum up there.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:15:59 UTC No. 16418010
>>16417993
Shocked to find out that apparently a lot of people who boast about their knowledge when it comes to 'ML' don't know that the fucking machines were a dead-end and that we had to open some skulls to get where we are today.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:17:17 UTC No. 16418013
>>16416118
How long is the dry spell going to continue? Does my field has a chance at getting one of those?(Partial Differential Equations btw).
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:19:43 UTC No. 16418023
>>16418013
A physicist would say that probability of every single STEM field winning a Nobel price in physics converges to 1 given enough time.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:25:20 UTC No. 16418043
Listen up, sci-tards. I am going to make an easy prediction. Current AI models, despite the huge proportional increases thanks to scaling, are already hitting a limit they are not able to cross and this won't change until the next paradigm and this paradigm won't come from physicists but neuroscientists because it will only happen once we have improved once more our knowledge of the only real. thinking machine that we know of: the human brain.
So OpenAi, Microsoft and whatever would be better off investing their mones in fucking brain scans, microscopes and cell cultures.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:51:33 UTC No. 16418166
>>16418043
Taking into account that one of the biggest discoveries about how microtubules(cell biology) is related to consciousness through quantum effects(physics) discovered by a doctor in anesthesiology... I don't even know anymore anon, at this rate the next AI breakthrough might come from sociologists.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:52:15 UTC No. 16418167
>>16418166
>the biggest discoveries about how microtubules(cell biology) is related to consciousness through quantum effects(physics)
lol, lmao even
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:58:45 UTC No. 16418175
>>16417238
Fuck your dumb cartoon
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:38:20 UTC No. 16418715
>>16416118
Physics has had a 337 year dry spell. Most of the breakthroughs in Physics since then has been by other disciplines and then retroactively modelled by mathematicians only to finally be dumbed down for the physics community by someone using a simpler notation for retards.
All of modern physics is fundamentally based on conservation of energy and this law was discovered by medical professional von Mayer, later improved by chemists, formalized and mathematized by engineers and mathematicians. It took almost 60 full years before it was dumbed down for the physics community.
>>16415821
Physics has always done this. They are parasites that survive solely on funding and therefore they have to lie and decieve for a living to get this (unlike CS, math and engineering which have real world value as professions).
Also take the recent propoganda with nuclear weapons which secured them funding for last the last century. Nuclear fission was discovered by Otto Hahn (a pure chemist), and the nuclear bomb itself was designed by a bunch of army engineers/techs with the most difficult math problem being the implosion syncronization problem solved by von Neumann (Chemical Engineering+pure Math background) and most difficult refinement problem was solved by process engineers.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:53:48 UTC No. 16418731
>>16418715
>All of modern physics is fundamentally based on conservation of energy
Conservation of many things, not just energy. This is expressed in modern parlance as symmetries. Im of course only talking about fundamental physics, theres many other fields of physics besides particle physics.
Just telling you are wrong, conservation of energy is just part of the story.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:07:32 UTC No. 16418742
>>16418731
>Conservation of many things, not just energy.
Wrong, energy is the only conservation law that holds in all scales and spacetime metrics of physics.
>This is expressed in modern parlance as symmetries.
Yes, we already know your dumbed down retard translation of Lie groups. Keep up.
> Im of course only talking about fundamental physics, theres many other fields of physics besides particle physics.
Physics as a discipline did not contribute to any of the fields that they have tried to call "applied physics". Theoretical physics is the entire claim to fame and high-energy physics in particular is the only field of physics unique to physics itself.
>Just telling you are wrong, conservation of energy is just part of the story.
You are entitled to your incorrect opinion. It's how parasites relying on deception survive. I don't blame you for your nature.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:08:38 UTC No. 16418745
>it uses math it's must be physics bro
>trust me bro, also please give me 100 billions more to build the next LHC bro
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:44:02 UTC No. 16418880
>>16418043
I am considering Group Theory as a candidate to birth a whole new paradigm that would solve computation and shift current Machine learning models through the power of conjugacy and reduction of dimensionality.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:55:10 UTC No. 16418936
>>16418166
>next AI breakthrough might come from sociologists.
Oh absolutely. AI models are being fine tuned to act nice and tell you what you want to hear. That's due to sociologists.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:00:30 UTC No. 16418938
>>16418043
I don't think so, but it depends on what you mean by "AI". Most people seem to think the word means "human AI", but that's not really the ultimate goal of the field at all. In terms what we can learn from "more scanning", I don't think there's a shortage of data between the Blue Brain Project and literally the largest data reserve on Earth from medical imaging.
Neuroscientists themselves are also not trying to create "human AI", that's not what their discipline was designed for.
My two cents is that breakthroughs will come in the from improved methods in TDA (to better understand, structure and model data) and control theory (being used to design AI with actual planning capability).
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:04:42 UTC No. 16418943
>>16418013
Any major breakthrough in PDEs is probably gonna be fields medal (or Wolf prize if >40) worthy before its Nobel worthy. Besides, the Nobel prize is more for old fucks past the point of doing research, and I would consider any mathematics prize, so fields, wolf, breakthrough, etc. to be higher quality than a Nobel at this point. It was different 50 years ago of course.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:22:46 UTC No. 16418954
>>16418943
>>16418013
What kind of breakthroughs can we really expect in "PDE"s though? Honestly it's kind of like saying you want to make breakthroughs in "Calculus". There are no more breakthroughs to be made except for subfields that happen to use PDEs.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:31:41 UTC No. 16418964
>>16418954
Saying you wanted to make a breakthrough in calculus would have made sense 200 years ago though. Technically any research on PDEs is in the field of calculus (analysis), but you say PDEs to be more specific.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:38:32 UTC No. 16419019
>>16418964
My entire point is that PDEs is also very unspecific. It's a massive field and saying you could make a breakthrough only made sense 100 years ago.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:09:51 UTC No. 16419035
>>16415821
Reason is, paraphrasing st. Sabine, that not a single fucking worthwhile advancement was made in Physics.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:30:12 UTC No. 16419464
>>16418938
You are completely wrong. Machine learning and artificial intelligence spent decades in a dead-end until modern Neuroscience understood how basic neurones function.
>>16418880
Is this a troll post? Group theory has been around for 100 years.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:40:22 UTC No. 16419758
>>16418742
>energy is the only conservation law that holds in all scales and spacetime metrics of physics.
This isnt true.
All spacetime symmetries are universal.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:47:05 UTC No. 16420661
>>16419758
>All spacetime symmetries are universal.
>>16419464
>You are completely wrong. Machine learning and artificial intelligence spent decades in a dead-end until modern Neuroscience understood how basic neurones function.
Utter horseshit.
To this day not a single idea in ML/AI uses the Hodgekin-Huxley model and its derivatives.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:22:52 UTC No. 16420697
>>16420661
>All spacetime symmetries are universal.
Yes
Not just energy
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:28:32 UTC No. 16420700
Machine learning i.e OpenAI came to the fore thanks to research done for Goggle photos. It worked very well at identifying pictures, so the next idea was to reverse it (from a phrase to a picture).
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 02:20:14 UTC No. 16424005
Bit of a stretch
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 06:00:31 UTC No. 16424262
we don't need more STEM jobs, everything STEM will be automated. We need subservient blue collar slaves.
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 09:20:06 UTC No. 16424539
>>16417238
Informatics should be added to the right of math, since that is basically just computing with symbols.
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:29:29 UTC No. 16429500
>>16415821
Bait thread. The good majority of physicists acknowledge the choice was bizarre af, that perhaps a case could be made for Hopfield but Hinton was too far. It’s a sad day when physicists realize that they’re getting the same treatment chemistry always gets:
>get awarded the Nobel in chemistry for using machine learning to study protein folding funded by fucking Google
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:43:10 UTC No. 16429526
>>16420661
>To this day not a single idea in ML/AI uses the Hodgekin-Huxley model and its derivatives.
Exactly, because they are applying a fucking more primitive notion of Neuroscience, retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:22:19 UTC No. 16430490
>>16415821
>they awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics to Machine Learning to claim it as physics, mind you. what a fucking reach. we can see your tricks from miles away. envy much?
What they really mean is that everything is math but their inferiority complex would never allow them to give mathematicians such a victory.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:09:47 UTC No. 16431572
>>16415847
>>16415837
Cope & seethe.
Physics hits the wall, there was nothing more impressive than AI in recent decades.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:46:02 UTC No. 16431625
>>16418715
>Physics has had a 337 year dry spell
General Relativity? Quantum Theory?