this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
-41 points (16.4% liked)

science

17719 readers
103 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Alright I’ll bite. I don’t think this is AI drivel, I do think this article comes from a place of a serious lack of understanding of the standard model and quantum mechanics.

Yes, prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics some physicists realized that if they made certain assumptions, the math “just worked out”. They did not understand why this was the case, and being good scientists they sought to. They were also clear about their lack of a model to justify this math.

The development of quantum mechanics not only solved all these problems, but also predicted additional physics that has since been verified (solid state mechanics for example is just applied quantum mechanics, and predicted and described the transistor).

The reason quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics are treated as the best description of reality we currently have is because they are in fact. Attempts to describe cosmology and observational physics based in alternative models all do a worse job, either failing to account for observations or making unphysical predictions.

A quote from the article:

While MOND successfully predicts many galactic phenomena, often with greater simplicity than dark matter models, it faces its own challenges, particularly in galaxy clusters, and has often been dismissed by the mainstream physics community, sometimes explicitly because it is perceived to “lack mathematical elegance” or deviates too far from the established framework of General Relativity, suggesting theoretical preference can overshadow empirical parsimony.

This is incorrect. MOND is generally dismissed because as the article admits, it fails to account for all observed behavior. If you have to pick a model that describes more observed phenomena, which do you choose: the model that matches nearly all empirical data, or the one that only matches a subset but maybe could do better if someone could come up with the right formalism? If one insists that MOND is the path forward, then it is they who are dogmatically blinded by their choice of model.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

I reported that post as drivel but the "AI" part didn't occur to me either. Anyway though. c/science isn't an "open platform" in the sense of being a garbage dump where anyone can post random crap. It's moderated and has standards that the post didn't meet. The author might instead want to start a blog to post their rants.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Went ahead and looked up the original site and article in question: it's not worth it. This person exclusively holds a stance of "O RLY??? (arms crossed, eyebrow raised)" to anything after the ultraviolet catastrophe's resolution. They don't have any solutions to the questions science has been trying to resolve. They just want to call the scientific community a bunch of quacks. They're an anti-intellectual.

If anyone wants to read the article and make their own comments, feel free. I will not be linking it because it does not deserve platforming, just like all the other unsubstantive ideas that die in darkness.

EDIT: After also looking through the other articles, I do not in the slightest doubt that this article was AI slop. It reads like a bunch of summaries plucked out of Wikipedia. The other articles in question are: "AI Patent Assistance", "Framework for LLM-Assisted Innovation and Strategy", " Perceptron to Quantum AI", "Novel Approach to AI Benchmarking", " Unmasking AI Bias", and "Untapped Potential of Mobile AI". They also have a bunch more anti-intellectual drivel like " Physicists are Clueless", "Evolution Flaws and Solutions in Quantum Measurement", and " Exposing the Flaws of Conventional Scientific Wisdom".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I dunno, looks like some blatant self promotion at the very least.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

Unfortunately, its a crazy person that can't get anybody to listen to them.
It would be nice if they would just chill and don't have to get banned.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

Quni settle down. You don't have to alienate everyone on the whole internet.

Dang dude. Chill.

And stop posting garbage.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let's count the bans so far for spouting the heresy of #information #metaphysics:

  1. @reddit r/cosmology
  2. @Quora
  3. @science
  4. @arxiv_physics (request to join as an independent researcher ignored)
  5. ResearchGate (the name says it all)
  6. LinkedIn? (Maybe. I'm trying...)

#OpenScience ?☹️

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Thanks for the good times Quni. You've brought this community together. Well done.

Yes. You should harass LinkedIn next. That is the move. Its huge. Imagine all the little groups you could infiltrate and indoctrinate with your unique perspective.

Or ... now this is a truly wild idea ... you could go back to your futurology instance, click the button, and start your own community.
d00d. There are other weirdos that will talk to you. You just gotta find them. Build it and they will come.
And in the mean time, you can work on your presentation skills.

....

BTW ... Folks, this is not AI slop. If you've read the site, this is clearly old-skool crazy, typed at mad speed, around 4am after 16 cups of coffee and some perceived insult on the internet. Back before we had AI to write garbage for us, we had people like Quni. And we still do. Here he is.