CS + Graphics + ML + Vision + etc.etc.
What are ways we can mathematically and computationally model our world?
How do we hold the gap between those models and the world?
Is there room for a poetic computation that encourages and reveals nuance and ambiguity? Does mathematical thinking actually require a modernist command-and-control orientation or is there another way?
| Web | https://wxs.ca |
We're accepting new writing for Orbital Studies, a literary science magazine cultivating a poetic orientation towards the world revealed to us by science.
Issue theme: *Ways of Seeing The Objective World*
Deadline Dec 10: https://orbitalstudies.com
Please share! We pay all contributors.
There is something mesmerizing about this to me - the very purpose of learning is minimally that the human brain’s act of compression is some kind of quasi mystical process that produces brand new insights that can’t be gotten from AI spark note summaries.
It is also weirdly sad to upsell your laziness as sophistication that is beyond those of us who read - I too can easily “distribute to 17 models” if I wanted to pretend to know things. The idea of getting differing and conflicting viewpoints or perspectives on a topic is called syntopical reading and certainly cannot be achieved by outsourcing the task because reading makes you tired and desperate to look at your phone.
there are four #Torontohenge events each year --
Feb 15 (+) sunset 5:48pm
Apr 19 (+) sunrise 6:28am
Aug 23 (–) sunrise 6:31am
Oct 25 (–) sunset 6:18pm
(+) good pics for a week after
(–) good pics for a week before
There's never been a better time to make friends in person!
https://www.404media.co/this-college-protester-isnt-real-its-an-ai-powered-undercover-bot-for-cops/
Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for this Universe: why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a simulation
F. Vazza
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08461 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.08461 https://arxiv.org/html/2504.08461
arXiv:2504.08461v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We assess how physically realistic the ''simulation hypothesis'' for this Universe is, based on physical constraints arising from the link between information and energy, and on known astrophysical constraints. We investigate three cases: the simulation of the entire visible Universe, the simulation of Earth only, or a low resolution simulation of Earth, compatible with high-energy neutrino observations. In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics, or (literally) astronomically large, even in the lowest resolution case. Only universes with very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as a simulation. On the other hand, our results show that it is just impossible that this Universe is simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements of the far future.
We assess how physically realistic the ''simulation hypothesis'' for this Universe is, based on physical constraints arising from the link between information and energy, and on known astrophysical constraints. We investigate three cases: the simulation of the entire visible Universe, the simulation of Earth only, or a low resolution simulation of Earth, compatible with high-energy neutrino observations. In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics, or (literally) astronomically large, even in the lowest resolution case. Only universes with very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as a simulation. On the other hand, our results show that it is just impossible that this Universe is simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements of the far future.
Edward L Platt
Andrew Bogott
Boarders
makeworld
Rudy
arXiv physics.pop-ph bot