PureBasic Forums - English

Since sequoia, I have the distinct impression that anything I read or write is being analyzed (but it's not just an impression…)
I mean, how stupid is that?
I saw how AIs work and they are STUPID, but that's not their fault; the real STUPID is who thinks that harvesting tons of data can make him smarter by querying his STUPID spies…

It's not stupid. Most of these AI's are scraping places such as github because Microsoft thinks that's okay.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is using Windows to help train these chat bots.

I would never limit myself to answering prompts.

This is interesting!
Grok and God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga7m14CAymo

@Piero (Grok and God)

I'm not sure, (while also not stating anything).
Our recent knowledge predicts that the universe is flat in global shape (not bending into itself as a sphere or donut or whatever), homogeneous (on large scale), isotropic and infinite. The cosmology finds the "evidence" to these in 3 major (and independent) measurements:

• - the completed map of the cosmic background radiaton
  - the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements from the galaxies
  - the distribution of galaxies

IF these predictions are true, there are infinite number of earthlike planet, where the chemical life creation did not happen, as it has little chance.
We on Earth hit the jackpot 4 times in a row, so we can be here to ask the question, how was that even possible.
Also, if these are true, we don't need the theory of multiverse, there must be an infinite amount of exact copy of Earth with an exact copy of Piero in our universe, we just don't have enough time and speed to find it in the infinite universe.

@miso (infinite Pieros)

This seems to be a VERY good book to support the creationist Grok and one Piero:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062349597

I will look at it. I'm just saying, if you have infinite number of dice throws, you will have all the possible sequencies somewhere in any finite scale.
This alone does not prove the existence or nonexistence of a Creator.

@miso
your "we don't need the theory of multiverse", "infinite number of dice throws/earths…" may explain life forms (but see that book amazon page; reviews etc…)

"multiverse" is often used to explain why it's so incredibly fine-tuned (physics constants etc.) to support life (so instead of infinite earths, you need infinite universes)………

(so instead of infinite earths, you need infinite universes)

Thats true for the physics constants/values of the fundamental forces. Liveable universe is a miracle in its own.
Purely for life in a liveable infinite and homogeneous flat universe, the infinite Earth theory is fine and possible.

My problem with the multiverse theory is that math allows it, but we wont be able to measure anything that is outside our universe.
Probably always be a theory wether it is real or not.

Hello piero,

it would be cool not to come with religion (immediate or link).

For the subject of AIs, I coded it near 30 years ago, and there is everything to code an AI on this forum, obviously thank to a chinese friend which appeared here, shared here and disappeared here.

On the basis, you can see, an AI uses an exponential function, floating point variables, and arrays (memory).

We could note that 30 years ago, my hardware was not advanced for the time, so I used integers and simulated based-2 log function. Note that, today, any AIs suggest to their engineers a very simpler hardwared template to build future AIs. I guess this new template does not use floats number, but integers.

And I also guess, this new template does not use trigonometry, but a simulated log function.

And I guess again, this new template has chosen the numeric base to simulate the log function is... two.

It won't be a level of AI which will be out of the mastering of the humankind. But there will any human authors, exactly as, in coding, the problem is and stays between the chair and the computer.

miso wrote:I'm not sure, (while also not stating anything).
Our recent knowledge predicts that the universe is flat in global shape (not bending into itself as a sphere or donut or whatever), homogeneous (on large scale), isotropic and infinite. The cosmology finds the "evidence" to these in 3 major (and independent) measurements:
- the completed map of the cosmic background radiaton
- the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements from the galaxies
- the distribution of galaxies

I read "flat", "homogeneous" and "acoustic".

1) flat, I do not think so. But our retinas, to observe the sky, are flat. It is our brain which gives more than 2 dimensions.

There also is an astrophysical expression which describes a geometry of our universe : "flat universe", this means, that globally the universe, has 3 spatial dimensions which are perpendicular as the 3 adjacent edges of a cube. "Flat universe" is opposite to "curve universe". And this "flat universe" is proven by the science which removes everything in this space. It is more a referency, than a reality. Because the humankind has never seen the empty universe. It is a referency to imagine deeper and more complex characterics of the universe.

Note that if the universe turns around a bigger object, from the outside of this system, the universe won't be "flat", it won't be cubic, it won't be in a static and "solid" cube of vacuum. And however, we will get all the physical details which proves the opposite : if everything was removed, a rock cast to a direction won't go out of a rectilinear way, won't gain or loose speedness, thank to the empty space, even if a very big and far object, attracts this rock. This because in these very big scales, it is not the rock which is attracted by a big object, but it is the whole space itself which is attracted, as a fish in an aquarium, in a car, on a horizontal and rectilinear road, in a constant speedness.


2) "homogeneous" : no. If it was real, we would not exist, and all the matter of our universe would be iron. A circle is never perfect, so a sphere is never perfect, so the universe is born with differences, and these difference has grown. So there are very big areas of vaccum inside our universe where there is nothing, no star, nothing, between areas where there are millions of galaxies. "homogeneous" is also a referency, like sociologists who measure the number of demonstrators in a crowd: they agree that the crowd is homogeneous, because their census capabilities are too limited to grasp the real weightings.

3) "acoustic". I said before our retinas are flat (are a 2D surface). Some scientists like convert electromagnetic value to acoustic values. This can be artistic and pedagogic, but really there is "only" electromagnetic energy. Anyway, there is no sound in the universe, because there is no atmosphere to bring a sound. It is again a referency to help us to imagine a galaxy has waves like a swimming pool...


I am tired my friends... I wasted a strong time to edit my text. That is the reason I will concentrate my small brain to a text editor...

@Ollie
I also want to drop the topic, though your insights were appreciated. We won't be the ones who solve these questions.
Just a few thoughts
-BAO : scientists tend to name things in a 'stupid' way, it's not the first time. Of course it's not sound, they just compare to it.
-homogeneous: the universe is not homogeneous in the small scale, but homogeneous on the large scale.
(the parts that are not visible has a similar distribution as the visible parts. This is the cornerstone of modern cosmology)
-flat universe: As you said, it's not 2d flatness, and if flat, its truely infinite from the inside. (you will never reach your startpoint just by going toward one direction as you would in a spherical shape. Its hard to point to a fourth dimension which around a 3d space can be shaped, I think saying flat is fine)

Cosmologist are pretty sure about these today, though all of these has minority reports that say otherwise. So, who knows?

-religious posts: I think this was not a violation of the rule. I can think of things I do not want to see here, but that was not one of those.

Piero wrote: Tue Jul 29, 2025 7:11 am This is interesting!
Grok and God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga7m14CAymo

Piero, that was an interesting video on Grok and how it operated as an AI. Ignoring the subjects that were being inquired about for a moment, it was interesting to note that it revealed that it gave answers to general inquiries that were reflections or the general consensus (popular) view from a select scientific group. When more precise methods and categories of evidence to consider were specified it instead ignored the consensus of a group and reached a different answer based on specific logical reasoning steps.

I personally have a low opinion of AI. This translates to a mistrust of the answers it provides. This isn't unusual for me as I also treat answers from human sources with some skepticism. I evaluate information and its sources carefully before incorporating it into my own body of knowledge or 'trusting' it and making any decisions based on it. I would think that I am not unusual in this.

Now, turning to the idea of the multiverse. I think there are other universes. I think they are just like ours. I don't think they have their own peculiar laws of physics, math, quantum dynamics, or particles but that they are the same as our universe in those respects.

I don't think there is another you (or me) in the different universes but just that there may be another individual with the same attributes or qualities as you. Infinite combinations of finite possibilities supports this expectation. It also dictates that you would have an effectively zero chance of meeting such a person in our own universe of infinite possibilities because of the limitations placed on us because of our short lifespan and the great distances to the next populated world. So this means that even though there are other populated planets in our universe and other universes we won't have contact with them. We can know they exist but that is the limits of our knowledge because time won't allow us to ever communicate with the life on them.

Returning back to Grok, if this universe is the result of intelligent design than the only extraterrestrial place or life we could realistically communicate with would be the place and/or perrsonage(s) of the designer(s) as that would seem to be the only one(s) with the ability to exceed the limitation of our lifespan and limits on our knowledge, travel or communication.

It is interesting to discuss but I don't see answers to the larger questions about the universe coming from a group of scientists in my lifetime. I also don't see those answers coming from AI due to it having the simular limits on its lifetime, travel and communication with nearby planets. The lengths of time may be larger but they are still limited and unable to overcome the needed distance for communication to take place. AI Robots will still degrade, run out of fuel and eventually fall before any communication succeeds. Space is still expanding.

Demivec wrote: Thu Jul 31, 2025 9:11 amit gave answers to general inquiries that were reflections or the general consensus (popular) view from a select scientific group. When more precise methods and categories of evidence to consider were specified it instead ignored the consensus of a group and reached a different answer based on specific logical reasoning steps.

I'm glad you noticed it; IMHO that's very telling about "public AIs"… I tend to consider them as "biased databases"…

Incidentally, the "creationist Grok" part is "more impressive", anyway also interesting…

For the movie link, here are questions I ask for myself and share to you, my friends, without demand :

When the hologram has been integrated on the top of the smartphone ?
After the movie has been done ?
Is it the lonely thing integrated ?

The place of a divinity, is it in the commercial title of a movie ?
Or is the place of a divinity, just in the secret heart and without logic of the persons who love it ?
Do you prefer your children say you clever surprises ?
Or do you prefer an artificial thing connected in a world wide network says you clever surprises ?


For the real interesting things :

Dear Piero, if our planet and our sun was placed in the middle of Bouvier vacuum, with our eyes, we would not know that the stars exist, however all these stars would be all over us...
The universe is not homogeneous.

I risk to say to you, there is a pressure of more than 10^100 bars (kg/cm²) which has been mysteriously pushed during the birth of our universe. This has formed a ball of vacuum in which our universe is expanding. And our universe has huge areas of vacuum inside it.

Note that most of the people do not do easily the difference between 10^6 and 10^9.

If over us we have a vacuum, (pressure = -1 bar), and over this, there is a pressure of 10^100 bars, I doubt again there is anything globally homogeneous.

Behind this massive pressure, there is probably a far bigger vacuum, with other "bubbles". Is it parallel universes ? I do not think so : it is just others universes...

Actually, our technology does not allow to make better that a prison on the moon which has a distance of only one second-light.

One second in a volume of 15 billions of years, years light.

our technology = 1 second
the universe = 15 000 000 000 years

Biologically, we could reach near the speed of light in less than one year, because we live in a space-time acceleration of 10m/s² on the Earth (1 G), and the light speed is 300 000 000m/s.

So in a circular orbit whom the radius is the half-way between the Earth and the moon, we would see the Island becoming a continent, and the whole Earth changing completly, like a sci-fi movie with parallel worlds.

Anyway, leave the Earth to travel away, it is physically see all the people on Earth be died by the time, just to reach the first planet, in proxima centauri (4 years light).

We have not created tomatoes in Mir, neither in ISS. We are not able to feed ourself away from the Earth.

Scientists have discovered the stars vibrated like the atoms transmitting a sound.

Here is the movie I wanted to share : no commercial logic, just an artistic convert of a pulsar sound.

If the little Prince could lay his feet on the surface of this pulsar, turning near the speed of light, yes, he would be invaded by an infinite loneliness, because everybody far in the Earth would be caught by the time. But he would see all the galaxies dancing together in the sky, before the universe disappears in the far future.

Like Saint-Exupery said, << do not hear the flowers >>.

Regards

Olli wrote: Fri Aug 01, 2025 12:26 am Regards

Dear Olli,
I think we should all ask ourselves:
Why the SCIENTIFICALLY VERY VALID "idea" of a Creator seems to be so dangerous? (I'm being VERY concise)
What (ethical, legal………) implications does it have? (I'm being VERY concise)

PS: no religion here, just Science…