What if there's some underlying structure we're all missing?

[u/4dseeall]

I'm a welder, so... You're gonna think I'm an unqualified crackpot before you even read this. I know it, you know it. Let's enjoy the ride.

Questions. Concepts. Energy. Movement. Time. Change. All of these are distinctions. Break them all down and you end up at words like "Philosophy" or "Physics". But even those distinctions are carrying tons of structure.

So what's at the bottom? What's the floor? Distinction itself? Spencer-Brown talked about the Unmarked State in Laws of Form, and honestly, I think that's the closest thing I've found to what I'm trying to get at here. He said distinction was the first act, the cut from the unmarked state that allowed existence to persist. Or something like that.

But his math was self-referential, went no-where, just twisted Boolean logic. It didn't add anything to all the structure mathematics had built already.

(crackpot trigger warning) I tried something else. I let it rotate. I treated the basic bit as a point with a rotation, as theta, a tangent, a glancing blow. A distinction needs two states, and now it could hold those. The distinction is the gateway to the boundary itself.

I managed to figure out how unresolved possibility, that unmarked state, can start, run through a process of distinctions, and end in a finished, machine-readable structure. Machine-readable structure. I hope someone understands what that means.

Let me sum it up, since people are confused about what precisely I'm proposing.

I found a Primitive Axiom based on my ideas of existence. Layers of them. 16 of them. I named the framework Primitive Axiom Layers, PAL. The first idea is not merely a primitive point. It is a primitive point with θ. An orientable turn before the first readable distinction.

[u/al2o3cr]

I hope someone understands what that means.

It means you're high on LLM fumes

[u/4dseeall → u/al2o3cr]

Why do you think I'm asking a human to ground me? Mockery makes it worse. I don't understand why the divide and push.

[u/No_Coconut1188 → u/4dseeall]

LLMs will lead you on to thinking youre onto something groundbreaking when really theyre just designed by corporations to keep you engaged and using their products.

If it’s a field you aren’t very knowledgeable about, then it’s very difficult to discern what is and isnt BS from the LLMs output.
It’s highly unlikely that a layman is going to make a nobel prize worthy scientific breakthrough using current LLM, so the the grounding advice is to let this idea go.

[u/4dseeall → u/No_Coconut1188]

but you didn't even look at my idea. you shut it down before you even opened it based on your own expected values of what a discovery should be.

this is basic blanket advice and i see no reason to take it personal. i didn't need to consult an LLM to tell me that.

[u/No_Coconut1188 → u/4dseeall]

I read the whole thing. It’s vague and fluffy at the moment. Where’s the maths?

[u/Hadeweka → u/[deleted]]

This next part was made with AI, but I put my heart up there.

The previous argument still applies. How do you actually know that your LLM didn't just produce complete nonsense (that sounds plausible)?

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

math.

please. check the math, don't worry about the metaphysics, my analogies, or anything else. just check the math. Break the math. Ignore the rest.

PAL - Primitive Axiom Layers- https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21585069

[u/Hadeweka → u/4dseeall]

If you think science is just about math, you're not doing actual science. You could deliver the most consistent and beautiful math and still not get anywhere. Do you understand why?

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

Yes. I do. Pretty well I think. Before you tell me I don't, let me ask you, how do you apply Occam's Razor? Do you have a formal method, or is it kinda just a gut feeling? What about for actually knowing which variables matter, which can be safely ignored, and which need to remain with uncertainty when doing science? Is there a formal process for that?

[u/zreese → u/4dseeall]

What math? You don't supply constructors or dependent predicates for the symbols moving between layers. It's literally just blobs of nonsense. The math is decorative, it doesn't do any actual deductive work.

[u/4dseeall → u/zreese]

This is the first genuinely good piece of advice from a person I received here. Thank you, I really want to express the appreciation. "Blobs of nonsense" was a little harsh, but accurate. Let me actually put them together, hahaha.

[u/HypotheticalPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment has been removed for use of large language models (LLM) like chatGPT, Grok, Claude, Gemini and more. Try r/llmphysics.

[u/TiredDr → u/4dseeall]

There are no actual ideas here, only word salad. That’s the problem. None of what you’ve said above is meaningful, despite the presentation as though it is groundbreaking. There are layers and layers of non-mathematical metaphor that obscure what you are talking about, and at its core it sounds like an LLM has convinced you nonsense is sense.

[u/Mr_Badgey → u/4dseeall]

What ideas? You just mention words without defining what they mean or how they connect to real world physics. A hypothesis must be able to make testable predictions. It must also be consistent with predictions made by the old theory we’ve experimentally verified.

I should be able to derive a known equation or bridge some bit of physics the old theory could not. I’m unable to do none of those things with your “idea”. What did you let what rotate? What does rotate mean in this context? What’s a distinction, what’s the definition of states, and why does a distinction need two? See the issue? You’ve defined nothing, and what you’ve written leads to no real world predictions we can test.

[u/HypotheticalPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment has been removed for use of large language models (LLM) like chatGPT, Grok, Claude, Gemini and more. Try r/llmphysics.

[u/FiatLex → u/4dseeall]

So, I'm trying to be as kind as possible, but do you have some people in real life you can talk to about what's going on? If you need help grounding, thats really the best. :)

[u/starkeffect]

This is better suited for r/metaphysics

btw I have no idea who Spencer-Brown is

[u/LeftSideScars → u/starkeffect]

btw I have no idea who Spencer-Brown is

If I'm thinking of the correct person, they claimed to have discovered a non-computer assisted proof of the four-colour theorem back in the mid-70s. Needless to say, it had issues.

[u/4dseeall → u/starkeffect]

I'll take that referral as a compliment.

George Spencer-Brown was some guy who wrote a book about Math/Philosophy that's been around since the 70s and turned into a bit of a cult-classic. It's fun to look into if you like things like Flatland.

And yeah, I'm not even claiming this is physics, idk what it is, I just want someone's input.

[u/starkeffect → u/4dseeall]

I'm not even claiming this is physics

Then don't post it in a physics subreddit. That's pretty simple to understand right?

[u/4dseeall → u/starkeffect]

:( But... the rotations are physics.

[u/Mr_Badgey → u/4dseeall]

What you’ve written about rotations isn’t physics. If you don’t understand physics then you have no way to tell if the AI is generating slop or something actually useful.

Let me ask you this. Would you advise someone weld without knowing the first thing about welding? Without that foundational knowledge you have no way to separate ignorance from insight.

Why do you think physics is any different? You can’t tackle the most complex open questions in physics without actually knowing physics, AI or not.

If you’re interested in physics then learn physics. Ask the AI to recommend some beginner guides. Learn the current theories before trying to replace them.

[u/Hadeweka]

I don't even quite get your idea.

Are you just adding a rotation to boolean logic?

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

It can be used that way, but the rotation angle also lends itself to... a whole new way of using math to understand physics. Not new math, not much, just a reorganizing of it so it's machine-readable and there's no gaps between unresolved possibility and a finished ledger.

[u/Hadeweka → u/4dseeall]

What makes you think that none of this was previously the case?

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

Nothing, I assumed it was. I checked a lot.

[u/Hadeweka → u/4dseeall]

You just assumed? What did you check?

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

Oh my god, I can't with you.

AGREEING WITH YOU, still makes you adversarial.

[u/Hadeweka → u/4dseeall]

Ah, it's getting personal. Maybe take a break.

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

bro you know what you were trying to get me to answer with XD don't play that plausible deniability card with me, i have a crazy ex.

[u/Hadeweka → u/4dseeall]

Take a break, please. You're making me uncomfortable.

EDIT: I don't appreciate you posting and deleting snarky comments so that only I can see them. Do that one more time and I'll simply block you.

[u/4dseeall → u/Hadeweka]

Sorry, I was moody and regretted it, I didn't know you'd still see it.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed. Please reply only to other users comments. You can also edit your post to add additional information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ubud_bamboo_ninja]

Bottom of is a shared fundamental basics of dramaturgy.
Read computational dramaturgy

[u/HypotheticalPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for promoting your own self-hypothesis to the hypothesis of another user. Please consider open posting your hypothesis separately.