Fun with language models on astronomy (AI, Chat GPT)

Why do You and Starla consider any controlled opposition information?! Who is the bot here?!

Perhaps you are, Wayne? In any case, whether you are a bot or not doesn’t really matter: your curt ‘contributions’ here have been dismal and useless. For you to talk about bots is quite frankly more than I can stomach. Good bye now.

Sending you love and light @Wayne_Cowtan. That will help you figure it out.

This is one of the most interesting “revelations” from AI Aria. It’s almost like history repeats itself, symbolically. In dialectical terms, geocentrism was “thesis,” heliocentrism was “antithesis,” and the Tychonic model was “synthesis” of sorts, in the 16th century. Similarly, in today’s time, I get the sense that heliocentrism is “thesis,” geocentrism/alternatives are “antithesis,” and the Tychos model is “synthesis.”

I believe at this point that Tycho and other geo-heliocentrists that came after Copernicus were on the path towards truth, as they were already reacting to and synthesizing this information. It isn’t always true that knowledge and truth are appreciated by a given society. Ironically this applies to the golden calf that is AI. I haven’t personally read Copernicus’s De revolutionibus, so I wonder what basis he had for proposing heliocentrism? It doesn’t seem to have been the standard view in the middle ages back to antiquity - does he hand-pick certain ancients who believed heliocentrism? If so, this would mean that the both thesis and antithesis before Copernican “synthesis” were at least 1,000 years old.

1 Like

The Hegelian Dialectic and AI have a glaring similarity, they both use language as tools. To what ends remains to be seen from AI (but obviously to obfuscate the truth), but Hegelians use the dialectic to lessen the outcome of the addition. To merge thesis with antithesis births a synthetic simulacrum, ie. something possibly resembling both but as useful as neither. A fitting analogy was the Golden Calf allusion, both, in the sense of AI being viewed as savior in disguise as a false god, and the sense of it taking the role of a powerful creation of foolish people looking for one. TYCHOS, being true (says all here), can not be attained by merging untruth (heliocentric), with “a bit closer to truth” (Tychonic). How can truth be pulled from a lie? The Copernican view is the useless synthisis of the power of the Church and pure Science. Ya get messy science. Hegel never gets anyone closer to truth.

2 Likes

It could be argued that any cult or authoritarian religion needs to be based on lies or at least unconfirmable dogma. And when some dogma take root, the leaders of the cult tend to enforce more dogma as unquestionable truths so that the actual truth eventually will seem ridiculous to it’s followers since it is so far away from what they believe to be true. And this progression or rather regression, can be seen in the previous Christianity and the current state religion. First the unconfirmable dogma of the Christian God was enforced. Then came Unicorns, that Jesus actually walked on water and that disease could be prevented by buying a blessing from the church (indulgence letters). Then the lies crumbled and there was a reformation. But then a new religion was established around the geometrically disproven heliocentric model and on top of it Big Bang and pseudo physics have been stacked so that actual scientific truth is preposterous to it’s followers. For example as I often point out, that rockets cannot create thrust in space seems ridiculous to most even though that is what is in accordance with confirmed physics.

3 Likes

I agree. That’s what I kept seeing in the conversation with Aria. It would reference facts, attempt to refute certain facts from the Tychos as non-facts, and then proceed with unprovable “synthetic” truths. Dialectics is very flawed and shortsighted, and generalizes in the same way, because it’s a form of “computation.” History I think we can agree is a lot more complicated than A+B=C.

I was going to add in my previous post that this seems to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a feature of the academic power structure - to basically flood the knowledge market with half-truths in order to strengthen verisimilitude and facade. I think, again, that AI taps into this foundation, which, is similar to “feet of clay,” in the sense that it’s very common and widespread but not actually sturdy. It exposes its own weakness, which seems to be a strength for those seeking truth!

3 Likes

Agree - and as it was discussed either on the forum or in the Tychos text before, that Jesuits were teaching the Tychonic model for many years, adds a layer of ambiguity to the supposedly linear "rational “scientific” progression of the cosmological model. It seems that before Copernicus there was no stable model other than a biblical geocentric Ptolemaic one. Even reading about heliocentrism I haven’t confirmed that any society actually believed/followed a heliocentric model, so Copernicus was speculating or constructing this view ex nihilo - unless someone can correct me on this. Good point about thrust - is that what SpaceX is trying to tell us with all of their failed missions? :laughing:

2 Likes

I was having a conversation with a friend. He was convinced that two star systems would create a double pendulum problem… so we asked Perplexity… here’s the result which I thought was interesting.

Perplexity AI: is 3-body problem similar to double pendulum, and is 2 star system an example of it? https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-3body-problem-AgCPigyYSjyHzWa15uR0ZA

Based on the search results, a 2-star system with an orbiting planet is not an example of the 3-body problem. Here’s why:

The 3-body problem refers to the chaotic motion that arises when trying to predict the orbits of three gravitationally interacting bodies, such as the Earth, Sun, and Moon. [2][3]

In contrast, a 2-star system with an orbiting planet is an example of a stable 2-body problem. The two stars orbit their common center of mass, and the planet orbits one or both of the stars. [1][4]

The key difference is that the 3-body problem introduces a third gravitational force that creates unpredictable, chaotic motion, while a 2-star system with a planet can be modeled as two separate 2-body problems that are stable and predictable. [2][3]

So in summary, a 2-star system with an orbiting planet is not an example of the 3-body problem. It is an example of a stable planetary system orbiting a binary star, which is a different type of dynamical system. [1][4]

Citations:
[1] Star system - Wikipedia
[2] Netflix’s 3 Body Problem: The science explained by an astrophysicist - Vox
[3] Three-body problem - Wikipedia
[4] Binary star - Wikipedia
[5] Multiple Star Systems

3 Likes