Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

Yes, you are correct about 1,2,3,4, although it does say that the system is more complicated than invariabe orbits.

4.4: The Properties of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons

It shows the electron as a particle orbiting the nucleus, similar to the way that planets orbit the sun. However, this is an incorrect perspective, as quantum mechanics demonstrates that electrons are more complicated.

That leaves it unclear.

However #5 refers to this site:

How can you describe Atomic structure?

Atoms are made up of a nucleus that is comprised of positively charged protons and neutrons, as well as shells of electrons that orbit the nucleus.

Atomic Structures And Properties

Atomic structure is the arrangement of subatomic particles within the atom. An atom is a complicated configuration of negatively charged electrons grouped

scienceinfo.com

There was no attempt at subterfuge. That would be silly.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, you are correct about 1,2,3,4, although it does say that the system is more complicated than invariabe orbits.

4.4: The Properties of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons

That leaves it unclear.

However #5 refers to this site:

How can you describe Atomic structure?

Atomic Structures And Properties

Atomic structure is the arrangement of subatomic particles within the atom. An atom is a complicated configuration of negatively charged electrons grouped

scienceinfo.com

There was no attempt at subterfuge. That would be silly.

None of these references states that atoms have “mathematical properties”, which was what you suggested was a quote from one of them. You made that up yourself, didn’t you?

 

[Write4U]

None of these references states that atoms have “mathematical properties”, which was what you suggested was a quote from one of them. You made that up yourself, didn’t you?

No, this was in reference to the term "orbit" which is a mathematical term.

An orbit is a mathematical object that represents the curved trajectory of an object, such as a planet around a star or an artificial satellite around a planet or moon 2. Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer, formulated three principles of planetary motion known as Kepler's laws of planetary motion 1. These laws describe how planets move in elliptical orbits with the Sun as a focus, how they cover the same area of space in the same amount of time, and how their orbital period is proportional to the size of their orbit 5.

Perhaps these synopses are Copilot AI generated? The numbers they quote are to existing science websites.

Explainer: All about orbits​

An orbit is the route that one space object repeatedly takes around another
Then, in the 1600s, Johannes Kepler identified mathematical patterns in the planets’ movements. Astronomers before him had known that the planets orbited, or moved around the sun. But Kepler was the first to describe those orbits — correctly — with math. As if putting together a jigsaw puzzle, Kepler saw how the pieces of data fit together. He summed up the math of orbital motion with three laws:

1. The path a planet takes around the sun is an ellipse, not a circle. An ellipse is an oval shape. This means that sometimes a planet is closer to the sun than at other times.
2. A planet’s speed changes as it moves along this path. The planet speeds up when passing closest to the sun and slows as it gets farther away from the sun.
3. Each planet orbits the sun at a different speed. The more distant ones move more slowly than those closer to the star.

Explainer: All about orbits

A handful of rules can describe the route some object repeatedly takes around another in space. Calculating that path, however, can be quite complex.

www.snexplores.org

and

In philosophy of mathematics​

Quine-Putnam indispensability​

Quine-Putnam indispensability is an argument for the existence of mathematical objects based on their unreasonable effectiveness in the natural sciences. Every branch of science relies largely on large and often vastly different areas of mathematics.

From physics' use of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics and differential geometry in general relativity to biology's use of chaos theory and combinatorics (see mathematical biology), not only does mathematics help with predictions, it allows these areas to have an elegant language to express these ideas. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how areas like quantum mechanics and general relativity could have developed without their assistance from mathematics, and therefore, one could argue that mathematics is indispensable to these theories.

It is because of this unreasonable effectiveness and indispensability of mathematics that philosophers Willard Quine and Hilary Putnam argue that we should believe the mathematical objects for which these theories depend actually exist, that is, we ought to have an ontological commitment to them. The argument is described by the following syllogism:[7]

(Premise 1) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.
(Premise 2) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.
(Conclusion) We ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities

This argument resonates with a philosophy in applied mathematics called Naturalism[8] (or sometimes Predicativism)[9] which states that the only authoritative standards on existence are those of science.

Mathematical object - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[exchemist]

No, this was in reference to the term "orbit" which is a mathematical term.

Explainer: All about orbits​

Explainer: All about orbits

A handful of rules can describe the route some object repeatedly takes around another in space. Calculating that path, however, can be quite complex.

www.snexplores.org

and

In philosophy of mathematics​

Quine-Putnam indispensability​

This argument resonates with a philosophy in applied mathematics called Naturalism[8] (or sometimes Predicativism)[9] which states that the only authoritative standards on existence are those of science.

Mathematical object - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don’t dodge. You made up that sentence about mathematical properties, and tried to pass it off as a quote from the linked sources.

Unfortunately for you, I have read them all and there is no trace of that sentence in any of them.

 

[Write4U]

Don’t dodge. You made up that sentence about mathematical properties, and tried to pass it off as a quote from the linked sources.

Unfortunately for you, I have read them all and there is no trace of that sentence in any of them.

See above.

 

[exchemist]

See above.

So either you made it up, or Copilot came up with it when you asked it to do so.

 

[Write4U]

So either you made it up, or Copilot came up with it when you asked it to do so.

If it came up I did not ask for it.

But thinking this through, it appears that when a search results in a blue synopsis (with number of consulted sites) on the normal search result page, it is AI generated.
Please note that I have intentionally tested CoPilot a total of 3 times since it installed itself on my computer via update. I do not use it at all for any purpose.

But if that is the case, it seems to refer to several different sites it gleaned its information from. In that respect it may be useful for quick identification and search of pertinent websites.

I do not cheat. My quotes are always accompanied by source or authorship in an honest effort to present a scientifically "supported" perspective.
Please note that I have never claimed authorship of a "new" TOE or some other divine revelation. I am a pragmatic ex-bookkeeper and know my limitations. THe problem is that my curiosity extends into an area of centuries old debates about the fundamental nature of the universe.

The concept of mathematical based universe is a valid area of inquiry. Without maths there would be no science (including chemistry and accounting) at all.

There would be only unregulated "chaos" in physics and "bartering" in commerce. Even then we are still talking about "equations" of sorts.

They seem to be an inescapable property of the universe.

 

[exchemist]

If it came up I did not ask for it.

But thinking this through, it appears that when a search results in a blue synopsis (with number of consulted sites) on the normal search result page, it is AI generated.
Please note that I have intentionally tested CoPilot a total of 3 times since it installed itself on my computer via update. I do not use it at all for any purpose.

But if that is the case, it seems to refer to several different sites it gleaned its information from. In that respect it may be useful for quick identification and search of pertinent websites.

I do not cheat. My quotes are always accompanied by source or authorship in an honest effort to present a scientifically "supported" perspective.
Please note that I have never claimed authorship of a "new" TOE or some other divine revelation. I am a pragmatic ex-bookkeeper and know my limitations. THe problem is that my curiosity extends into an area of centuries old debates about the fundamental nature of the universe.

The concept of mathematical based universe is a valid area of inquiry. Without maths there would be no science (including chemistry and accounting) at all.

There would be only unregulated "chaos" in physics and "bartering" in commerce. Even then we are still talking about "equations" of sorts.

They seem to be an inescapable property of the universe.

Was this passage:

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), andits behavior is determined by the orbital paths of its electrons12345.

a blue synopsis from Copilot?

And were "12345" references to the sites it consulted?

 

[Write4U]

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), andits behavior is determined by the orbital paths of its electrons12345.

a blue synopsis from Copilot?

And were "12345" references to the sites it consulted?

On second thought , it appears to be that way. I tested the numbers and they all refer to the word "orbit" on different sites or places, but not in the exact form of the synopsis (constructed by Copilot).
I admit it was sloppy work on my part, but I was not expecting that the "blue" search result was originated by Copilot.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now that I know, it won't happen again.

p.s. learned a new term; "octet rule".


Sounds mathematical to me.

 

[exchemist]

On second thought , it appears to be that way. I tested the numbers and they all refer to the word "orbit" on different sites or places, but not in the exact form of the synopsis (constructed by Copilot).
I admit it was sloppy work on my part, but I was not expecting that the "blue" search result was originated by Copilot.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now that I know, it won't happen again.

p.s. learned a new term; "octet rule".

View attachment 6361
Sounds mathematical to me.

Well no doubt many people are learning how to use LLMs. But you do need to make clear when you are just quoting Copilot, and ensure you avoid confusing that with quotes from actual references, when they are nothing of the kind.

LLMs are well known to come up with nonsense on occasion. They may also give you an answer tailored to the way you ask the question, i.e. a loaded question may give you a loaded answer.

 

[Write4U]

I think this may be of interest to a few readers.

This is an animated representation of the inner workings a bacterial cell, slowed down to a billionth of a second

This is astounding!

And it is just preview of what's to come on Dec 19 3:00 pm.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

This is the wrong way to respond to a question from a moderator, working in his official capacity:

You are really a piece of work.

You are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel with your unfounded accusations, man. Stop that and start acting like a civilized human being!

In post #354, above, I asked you the following important questions:

"Please explain why you are linking your words to an internet page that does not contain your words?

Are you trying to give the false impression that the linked page somehow agrees with what you wrote?

What happened here? Was this an error on your part, or a deliberate act of dishonesty?

If it was an error, will you apologise for your error?"

You still haven't directly responded to me to try to answer any of those questions, despite my clearly flagging that I was asking not out of personal interest, but in my capacity as a Moderator of this forum.

If it were not for the clarification about what actually happened that exchemist managed to extract from you over a series of recent posts, I would now be issuing you an official warning for dishonestly trying to pass off your words as the words of somebody else. You should probably thank exchemist for having more patience with you than I do.

Now we have learned that the mistake you made was to infer that the Copilot AI was quoting directly from the source page that you (it) cited, when clearly it was not doing that. Moreover, we have learned that the words in question were not your words at all, but the words of an AI "assistant" that you used to write your post.

In post #369, above, you wrote (to exchemist):

"I admit it was sloppy work on my part, but I was not expecting that the "blue" search result was originated by Copilot.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now that I know, it won't happen again."

I am very glad to hear that you won't be trying to pass off Copilot's writings as your own in future and that you won't be trying to pass off writings that you have generated (by any method) as writings that appear on a site that you include as a reference.

To be clear: here's what you need to do in future, whenever you cite a source:

• Clearly separate any quotes from the source from your own words. A reader must be able to tell what came from you and what came from the source you are citing.
• Don't pass off somebody else's summary of the source as either the words of the source itself or as your words - including if that "someone" is an AI text generator. Make it clear what came from where.

This is not too much to ask.
---

Now, the only remaining item we need to deal with are your insults directed at me, for daring to ask you some reasonable questions in my capacity as a Moderator.

Please post your apology to me for:
* Calling me a "piece of work" for asking some reasonable questions about one of your posts, where it turned out that the confusion was entirely your fault, not anybody else's.
* Claiming that I made "unfounded accusations" against you, when all I did was to ask you to clarify by answering a few reasonable questions. (Also note that it turned out that the "accusation" that those words were not part of the quoted source was not "unfounded". It was verified, and eventually even you admitted it.)

I expect you to post your apology in this thread.

Thanks.

 

[James R]

Back on topic. This post is written in my individual capacity as a poster to this thread, NOT in my capacity as a Moderator.

Wrong. Mathematics are not causal, but they are instrumental how the changes occur.
Mathematical guiding equations are how physical processes produce specific changes.

This is similar to example 2 in my post #353, above, where I wrote:

'2. The intrinsic mathematics of parabolas is built into the fabric of the universe. While this doesn't directly cause balls to follow parabolas, whenever they "try" to follow some other path through space, the intrinsic mathematics "guides" them to follow a parabola instead.'

Putting this in your language, it would read something like this:

"Mathematics are not causal to why balls follow the path of a parabola, but the maths is instrumental to how it follows the parabola. The mathematical guiding equation (the parabola equation) is how the physical processes on the ball produce the specific changes (i.e. the parabolic path)."

Look at the second sentence here. If a "mathematical guiding equation" somehow determines how a physical process proceeds, that is equivalent to saying that the "guiding equation" is causing the physical process to proceed in one way rather than some other way.

Clearly, this is incompatible with your assertion that "mathematics are not causal".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If mathematics is not causal to physical changes, then mathematical guiding equations are powerless to determine how physical changes occur.

Do you understand?

When you drive from here to there, the road is not causal to your driving , but it guides how you get from here to there.
If you run off the road, you crash.

One problem with this poor analogy is that a road is a physical object, just like your car. Another problem is that the driver of the car is a third actor in the analogy. There is nothing in the analogy about a concept somehow bringing about (or "guiding") a physical outcome.

I don't think your analogy is at all useful. I get the impression that you didn't put any real thought into it. It's just another reaction, to provoke a reaction. This kind of ill-thought-out mess is, apparently, the best you have to offer.

You maywant to peruse this link:

7 Universal Laws of Nature (and How to Use Them)

There are seven key universal laws of nature that are necessary to living a good life. Learn them in this article.

www.unstoppablerise.com

and

Laws of Nature | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Why would I want to do that?

 

[Write4U]

'2. The intrinsic mathematics of parabolas is built into the fabric of the universe. While this doesn't directly cause balls to follow parabolas, whenever they "try" to follow some other path through space, the intrinsic mathematics "guides" them to follow a parabola instead.'

Putting this in your language, it would read something like this:

"Mathematics are not causal to why balls follow the path of a parabola, but the maths is instrumental to how it follows the parabola. The mathematical guiding equation (the parabola equation) is how the physical processes on the ball produce the specific changes (i.e. the parabolic path)."

In my language we are in agreement and I do not understand your refusal to voice agreement, but instead continue to make derogatory remarks about my metal capacity.

From my post #355

Mathematics are not causal, but they are instrumental how the changes occur.
Mathematical guiding equations are how physical processes produce specific changes.

Which saying the same thing in "my own words" as you once insisted I should express myself.

 

[Write4U]

But that's the point: as I've already told you, the text you quote in post 330 does not appear in the link you provided. Please show @James R and myself where it comes from. I say again, it is not in that link. To remind you, the text in question is this:

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), andits behavior is determined by the orbital paths of its electrons12345.
But that is not what I posted.

This is what I posted:

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), andits behavior is determined by the orbital paths of its electrons12345.

Note the quotation marks. I also explained that this was "quoted" from the search result page, which must have been compiled by Copilot.

And this is the search page:

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), and its behavior is determin

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

JamesR said:
If mathematics is not causal to physical changes, then mathematical guiding equations are powerless to determine how physical changes occur.

The mathematical guiding equations are inherent in the curvature of the spacetime fabric.
Hence my use of Bohm's concept of the "Implicate (mathematical) Order" and the "Explicate (physical) Order".
(bracketed) words are mine.

 

[exchemist]

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), andits behavior is determined by the orbital paths of its electrons12345.
But that is not what I posted.

This is what I posted:

Note the quotation marks. I also explained that this was "quoted" from the search result page, which must have been compiled by Copilot.

And this is the search page:




The mathematical guiding equations are inherent in the curvature of te spacetime fabric.
Hence my use of Bohm's concept of the "Implicate (mathematical) Order" and the "Explicate (physical) Order".

(bracketed) words are mine.

There are no quotation marks. And you did not explain this passage was quoted from the search results page of your LLM, and that it did not appear in the cited references, until I dragged the admission out of you after a lot of dodging on your part.

All you had to do was to say; “Yes, I was quoting Copilot and the references are the ones Copilot flagged as relevant. I should have made that clear.”, and everyone would be happy with you. But no, you had to wriggle, try to change the subject*, duck and weave and only after persistent efforts on my part did you eventually concede the point. This is highly unattractive behaviour and (further) damages your credibility as a poster on this forum.


* You tried to quote chemistry at me, in the hope it would divert my attention from the subject at hand. This is not the first time you have tried that trick.

 

[Write4U]

There are no quotation marks.

You do not see the difference between a post and a quoted post? What system are you using?

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), and its behavior is determin

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Open it and you will see the synopsis I quoted.

 

[exchemist]

You do not see the difference between a post and a quoted post? What system are you using?

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), and its behavior is determin

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Open it and you will see the synopsis I quoted.

Quotation marks look like this: “ “ . There are none in post 375.

 

[Write4U]

Quotation marks look like this: “ “ . There are none in post 375.

Yes and when you use the in the above edit bar you ceate a block quote, just like I am using in "quoting" your "observation" above.


Are we back to semantics ?

 

[exchemist]

You do not see the difference between a post and a quoted post? What system are you using?

An atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition. It consists of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The mass of an atom is expressed in atomic mass units (amu), and its behavior is determin

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Open it and you will see the synopsis I quoted.

I don't know why you are doing this. That is what Bing returns when YOU enter as a search term "an atom has mathematical properties related to its structure and composition and". What Bing comes back with is a set of texts, in which it has found one or more of the key words in your search term.

So what? It does not come back with the passage at issue.