Hi,

I only post in sci.physics because some
peer had the idea that machine learning doesn't
work based on theories of physics, like

entropy, thermodynamics, ... so whats going
on in machine learning from a physical point
of view? Normaly I mainly post in sci.logic.

I have a deep detest of physics, I only passed
my highschool physic because it involved math,
but the physics teacher didn't notice,

he even used me when an inspector came into
the school, to demonstate that he has good
pupils. I played the game although I don't

believe that physics has a lot to offer.
It was interesting 100 years ago.

Bye

P.S.: Physics has a little revival in some
AI related fields like genrative AI. You might
find ideas like wave function collapes,

but its quite different from the models that
try to match nature. AI mostly uses adaptation
and inspiration from physics, not physics itself.

Physfitfreak schrieb:

On 2/4/25 5:14 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

Hi,

I already told you you can suck my cock:

Huh.., ok, so you're a fraud.

Do not throw papers at us here! I don't believe you understand them.

My asking you to be more genuine and open about learning those stuff
scared you enough to react like ... yes, like a fraud :) You think you
can fool me?

Not only that, almost anything about you is deranged, down to how you
form your paragraphs. You're probably a sick poppy. You've probably been
here under other aliases, and each time I kicked your sick ass hard.

Solution for you: Post your blabber to the relativity group only;
somebody there might believe that you actually know something. Cause
here I'll call your bluff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

But obviously readers of sci.physics like
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> are stupid
as fuck. Cannot relate AI to physics.

Expect me to do some schooling. Whats wrong?
Maybe a statistical outlier, I remember people
were more smart on USENET. Or a general trend

that we are converging to Idiocracy:

Idiocracy Electrolytes 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHfBobgLSI

Now USA has a budget crisis, and Elon Musk
bought the governement?

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I only post in sci.physics because some
peer had the idea that machine learning doesn't
work based on theories of physics, like

entropy, thermodynamics, ... so whats going
on in machine learning from a physical point
of view? Normaly I mainly post in sci.logic.

I have a deep detest of physics, I only passed
my highschool physic because it involved math,
but the physics teacher didn't notice,

he even used me when an inspector came into
the school, to demonstate that he has good
pupils. I played the game although I don't

believe that physics has a lot to offer.
It was interesting 100 years ago.

Bye

P.S.: Physics has a little revival in some
AI related fields like genrative AI. You might
find ideas like wave function collapes,

but its quite different from the models that
try to match nature. AI mostly uses adaptation
and inspiration from physics, not physics itself.

Physfitfreak schrieb:

On 2/4/25 5:14 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

Hi,

I already told you you can suck my cock:

Huh.., ok, so you're a fraud.

Do not throw papers at us here! I don't believe you understand them.

My asking you to be more genuine and open about learning those stuff
scared you enough to react like ... yes, like a fraud :) You think you
can fool me?

Not only that, almost anything about you is deranged, down to how you
form your paragraphs. You're probably a sick poppy. You've probably
been here under other aliases, and each time I kicked your sick ass hard.

Solution for you: Post your blabber to the relativity group only;
somebody there might believe that you actually know something. Cause
here I'll call your bluff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

Maybe you don't understand what I wrote,
when you write:

I don't think your understanding, as well
as your sincerity, of the role of physics in
machine learning is truthful, or even real.

The role of physics is dimishing. There
are certain forms of machine learning,
which have hardly anything to do with physics,

maybe with simulated annealing. But they
can excell simulated annealing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing

The math needed to understand all the new AI,
is currently quite disputed. Some say its
extremly easy and you can learn it on the fly:

And if it is math, it don't need to be physics,
physics is an applied science of math. Not all
math tools, even when they are used in physics,

are automatically physics.

Physfitfreak schrieb:

On 2/4/25 6:21 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

I only post in sci.physics because some
peer had the idea that machine learning doesn't
work based on theories of physics, like

entropy, thermodynamics, ... so whats going
on in machine learning from a physical point
of view? Normaly I mainly post in sci.logic.

Then post to sci.logic, not sci.physics. I don't think your
understanding, as well as your sincerity, of the role of physics in
machine learning is truthful, or even real.

You're another Ross Finlayson. You might even be him. Go blabber your
stuff with him, inside the relativity forum or wherever the heck that
sorry ass happens to blabber in.

I don't believe you are genuine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)