u/Hot-Organization-737

With power comes responsibility.

​

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

--------------

You might look at this and think to yourself " you're not showing enough discrete steps to prove the continuity of your results or structured"

If you think to yourself and say "nah this guy is a dumb ass" is it because you think im not reasonable or making sense? Is it possible that I'm not making sense because I'm failing to correctly unify ideas in a way that proves what I'm showing?

You can easily say I'm wrong because what I'm saying makes no sense. The sense of wrong comes from not detecting any relationship in the words that I'm saying to the truth of what I'm saying. Even if you think it might be possible that what I'm saying is true, you think that in its current form, it doesn't reveal enough structure that is corresponding to what I'm actually trying to say. You might say I need more evidence, more evidence is more discrete truth.

But the premise is that no matter how much discrete evidence I provide, I cannot actually prove the continuity of the structure I'm claiming to exist. The best I can do is add more discrete steps that get a little bit closer to proving the continuity. The only way you can accept that proof is if you think the discrete steps in my proof are actually sufficient to prove the continuity of the structure. So in reality there is no way that I can prove something like this, not how many discrete steps I take

The only way to accept this truth is just to accept the premise and not ask for why. That is called an axiom.

------------

I think Gödel's ICT is the fact that any formal system capable of producing peano arithmetic will have truths that cannot be proven within the system. I posit that the universe is a formal system. I posit the formal system of the universe is capable of producing peano arithmetic, thus some truths cannot be proven within the universe. I posit that the continuity of the universe is one of those things that cannot be proven within the universal formal system. I posit that the only way to accept the truth of the continuity of the universe is to just accept it. There is no formal proof I can make to prove the continuity of the universe. But that is the promise that I am proposing, [that the universe is of a continuous nature]. You might be thinking to yourself, you don't have enough evidence for that. I will never have enough evidence for it.

The be ridiculous nature of proof

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

--------------

You might look at this and think to yourself " you're not showing enough discrete steps to prove the continuity of your results or structured"

If you think to yourself and say "nah this guy is a dumb ass" is it because you think im not reasonable or making sense? Is it possible that I'm not making sense because I'm failing to correctly unify ideas in a way that proves what I'm showing?

You can easily say I'm wrong because what I'm saying makes no sense. The sense of wrong comes from not detecting any relationship in the words that I'm saying to the truth of what I'm saying. Even if you think it might be possible that what I'm saying is true, you think that in its current form, it doesn't reveal enough structure that is corresponding to what I'm actually trying to say. You might say I need more evidence, more evidence is more discrete truth.

But the premise is that no matter how much discrete evidence I provide, I cannot actually prove the continuity of the structure I'm claiming to exist. The best I can do is add more discrete steps that get a little bit closer to proving the continuity. The only way you can accept that proof is if you think the discrete steps in my proof are actually sufficient to prove the continuity of the structure. So in reality there is no way that I can prove something like this, not how many discrete steps I take

The only way to accept this truth is just to accept the premise and not ask for why. That is called an axiom.

------------

I think Gödel's ICT is the fact that any formal system capable of producing peano arithmetic will have truths that cannot be proven within the system. I posit that the universe is a formal system. I posit the formal system of the universe is capable of producing peano arithmetic, thus some truths cannot be proven within the universe. I posit that the continuity of the universe is one of those things that cannot be proven within the universal formal system. I posit that the only way to accept the truth of the continuity of the universe is to just accept it. There is no formal proof I can make to prove the continuity of the universe. But that is the promise that I am proposing, [that the universe is of a continuous nature]. You might be thinking to yourself, you don't have enough evidence for that. I will never have enough evidence for it.

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

--------------

You might look at this and think to yourself " you're not showing enough discrete steps to prove the continuity of your results or structured"

If you think to yourself and say "nah this guy is a dumb ass" is it because you think im not reasonable or making sense? Is it possible that I'm not making sense because I'm failing to correctly unify ideas in a way that proves what I'm showing?

You can easily say I'm wrong because what I'm saying makes no sense. The sense of wrong comes from not detecting any relationship in the words that I'm saying to the truth of what I'm saying. Even if you think it might be possible that what I'm saying is true, you think that in its current form, it doesn't reveal enough structure that is corresponding to what I'm actually trying to say. You might say I need more evidence, more evidence is more discrete truth.

But the premise is that no matter how much discrete evidence I provide, I cannot actually prove the continuity of the structure I'm claiming to exist. The best I can do is add more discrete steps that get a little bit closer to proving the continuity. The only way you can accept that proof is if you think the discrete steps in my proof are actually sufficient to prove the continuity of the structure. So in reality there is no way that I can prove something like this, not how many discrete steps I take

The only way to accept this truth is just to accept the premise and not ask for why. That is called an axiom.

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that's a person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the previous model. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that's a person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the previous model. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure. So that person who cannot see it will ask for a step-by-step proof to prove the continuity of a structure, but continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps. Cuz we have shown cuz we have shown that that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for continuity infinite discreteness cannot proxy for continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than can be shown than can be shown by discreteness by discreteness.. every step by step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feeling. Every step by step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feeling. But every discrete example of approved fails to show the actual continuity of structure but every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of structure that one is claiming to exist that

Tldr discreet proofs cannot prove anything tldr discrete proofs cannot prove anything

Semantic poetry: \[The reason why (\[it's\] and \[its\]) are so close in every form of reality is because they are a beacon for \[similar reality\]. In visual reality the difference is something so minor you might forget it. In auditory reality they are so close in similaity that you can't tell a difference. In actually reality their connections are so affirming that the distinctions are blurry. What's the difference between the its of something and the idea that those \[its\] are actually just \[it's\]? are the its of a person not what a person is? Does your house, your car, your phone, your wallet, your email, your dog, and all those other \[its\] not actually what make you, you? I suppose it's true that it is not true. In the same manner infact that thinks that the \[its\] of a bike are not the same as the \[it's\] of that very same bike, the bike has its handles, its wheels, its gears, and all of its other \[its\]. Wouldn't it be kinda ridiculous to use its \[its\] as an understanding of its \[it's\]? what kinda sense does it make use its \[its\] as a definition of its \[it's\]. To me, even if you account for the wheels, the handle, the seat and all my \[its\], that \[is\] not what the bike \[is\]

Scene changes\*

"Hey Paul, you sure love bikes. What do you think \[it\] \[is\] that is a bike? "Hey joe! Nice seeing you, you're my best ol pal and I love you. Anyways.... Well ,I don't know everything about bikes but let me tell you something. It ain't a bike if it doesn't have wheels on it" \*the friends laugh together, enjoying the joke that was made and thinking about the nature of bikes\* "No kidding Paul, I mean what \[is\] a bike without wheels? Maybe \[it's\] a spare anchor for a boat? \*The friends are enjoying the company of each other while talking about bikes. even though the conversation itself is meaningless, they still are managing to be happy\* "haha, I'm not so sure what it is, but I do know one thing, \[ \[it\] \[is\] \[not\] \] a bike.

\*Scene changes back to the people who were debating about the \[its\] and \[it's\] of the bike\*

Ugh, on second thought, maybe the \[its\] of a bike can be used for its \[it's\], but if I accept that then what am I saying about myself whenever I think about using \[its\] as \[it's\]? Sigh, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. Understanding \[its\] and \[it's\] aren't gonna pay my bills. \[!!!!!! If I know one thing and know it for sure \[it\]\[is\]; because I fully "!believe and accept!" That \[ \[it\]+\[is\] \] = T !!!!!\]

\*The scene changes. Apperently the entire rhetorical device that was presented as text to the readers was actual a movie that the characters \[it\] and \[it's\] were watching\*

\--\[it\]-- --\[it's\]--

I.

\^

!well fuck that sh\[it\] let's just become \[it\]

How did you end up thinking about this poem? I don't know \[it\] just happened.

\------------------------------------------------

👦🏿

|. | Hey, it's me the author

||

Thanks for viewing the post.

\-----------

🫩 I it's incomplete but I'm tired, can't you see it

|. | Know

||. On

My

(you can

even see my unused

Thoughts at the bottom xd, didn't even feel like cleaning it up the m e . s

s)

\---------

🤣

|. |. Yeah you're right, it's a bit silly but I'm trying to encode some value information into this post which i don't know how to do otherwise.

||

\---------

☺️ If you liked my post, please feel free to look at my

| |. \[Grand unified Theory of Everything\] and take the arguments \[seriously\], if you don't wanna, that's ok. The fact that you viewed this post of me is fine enough. Thanks and byeeeeeee

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

The emoji representation character has no aware of why his body was cut in half, although from our perspective the truth is painfully obvious. Bro got his shit chopoed off by the text.

\[Grand Unified Theory of Everything\]

It is impossible to argue that discrete truth engines are more capable of reason than continuous truth engines.

It is easy to argue that continuous truth engines are more capable of reasoning than discrete truth engines

Apply that diaganolization argument that shows that [real] is [more] than discrete

Define each and unique discrete truth engine as a number, then apply the diagonalization method of showing that even with an infinite amount of discrete numbers that

Even if a binary computer can compute an infinite amount of things its binary nature will never allow it to compute everything.

Because the law of a binary computer is a ontological flaw and binary thinking, computers are derived from truth engines so if there's a flaw in a truth engine then there's a flaw in a computer all computers do is compute truth really quickly. Because there are questions that are not possible to know the truth value too in binary truth AKA law the excluded middle then there will be things that cannot be computed by a computer.

The answer to the question that if you give a computer enough compute and time will it be able to compute any answer and the answer is no

It is because binary computers are derived from binary truth engines so it's obvious that the same problem in the truth engine which people call logic are present in binary computers. The moment that Godel's incompleteness theorem was presented. The question of is everything compatible should have obviously been no since that a computer is derived from a truth engine

With continuous truth engines you have an extra infinite dimension of reason that is available to you.

Everything that we know about continuous and discreet numbers are applicable to everything that can be defined as continuous or discrete.

What you perceive is literally your consciousness.

Look at this object and tell me what you see.

Object:

Object

Semantic poetry: \[The reason why (\[it's\] and \[its\]) are so close in every form of reality is because they are a beacon for \[similar reality\]. In visual reality the difference is something so minor you might forget it. In auditory reality they are so close in similaity that you can't tell a difference. In actually reality their connections are so affirming that the distinctions are blurry. What's the difference between the its of something and the idea that those \[its\] are actually just \[it's\]? are the its of a person not what a person is? Does your house, your car, your phone, your wallet, your email, your dog, and all those other \[its\] not actually what make you, you? I suppose it's true that it is not true. In the same manner infact that thinks that the \[its\] of a bike are not the same as the \[it's\] of that very same bike, the bike has its handles, its wheels, its gears, and all of its other \[its\]. Wouldn't it be kinda ridiculous to use its \[its\] as an understanding of its \[it's\]? what kinda sense does it make use its \[its\] as a definition of its \[it's\]. To me, even if you account for the wheels, the handle, the seat and all my \[its\], that \[is\] not what the bike \[is\]

Scene changes\*

"Hey Paul, you sure love bikes. What do you think \[it\] \[is\] that is a bike? "Hey joe! Nice seeing you, you're my best ol pal and I love you. Anyways.... Well ,I don't know everything about bikes but let me tell you something. It ain't a bike if it doesn't have wheels on it" \*the friends laugh together, enjoying the joke that was made and thinking about the nature of bikes\* "No kidding Paul, I mean what \[is\] a bike without wheels? Maybe \[it's\] a spare anchor for a boat? \*The friends are enjoying the company of each other while talking about bikes. even though the conversation itself is meaningless, they still are managing to be happy\* "haha, I'm not so sure what it is, but I do know one thing, \[ \[it\] \[is\] \[not\] \] a bike.

\*Scene changes back to the people who were debating about the \[its\] and \[it's\] of the bike\*

Ugh, on second thought, maybe the \[its\] of a bike can be used for its \[it's\], but if I accept that then what am I saying about myself whenever I think about using \[its\] as \[it's\]? Sigh, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. Understanding \[its\] and \[it's\] aren't gonna pay my bills. \[!!!!!! If I know one thing and know it for sure \[it\]\[is\]; because I fully "!believe and accept!" That \[ \[it\]+\[is\] \] = T !!!!!\]

\*The scene changes. Apperently the entire rhetorical device that was presented as text to the readers was actual a movie that the characters \[it\] and \[it's\] were watching\*

\--\[it\]-- --\[it's\]--

I.

\^

!well fuck that sh\[it\] let's just become \[it\]

How did you end up thinking about this poem? I don't know \[it\] just happened.

\------------------------------------------------

👦🏿

|. | Hey, it's me the author

||

Thanks for viewing the post.

\-----------

🫩 I it's incomplete but I'm tired, can't you see it

|. | Know

||. On

My

(you can

even see my unused

Thoughts at the bottom xd, didn't even feel like cleaning it up the m e . s

s)

\---------

🤣

|. |. Yeah you're right, it's a bit silly but I'm trying to encode some value information into this post which i don't know how to do otherwise.

||

\---------

☺️ If you liked my post, please feel free to look at my

| |. \[Grand unified Theory of Everything\] and take the arguments \[seriously\], if you don't wanna, that's ok. The fact that you viewed this post of me is fine enough. Thanks and byeeeeeee

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

The emoji representation character has no aware of why his body was cut in half, although from our perspective the truth is painfully obvious. Bro got his shit chopoed off by the text.

\[Grand Unified Theory of Everything\]

Grand unified theory of everything

The universe is infinite in data amount and data variety. Within the universe there are infinite simultaneous realities which are all wholly integrated yet can be partitioned and seemingly distinct. What type of data your Consciousness allows you to perceive dictates the level of reality that you exist in. Within a given reality there will be things that are inexplicable because your Consciousness is only aware or capable of being aware of specific data types. You will notice that there are phenomenon in your reality which cannot be explained just by the data type that's available to your consciousness. Because your data type interacts with other data types but you lack awareness of the other data types there will be seemingly inexplicable reasons for why things in your reality happen. With this understanding of the universe you can understand that everything is happening all at the same time every single conceivable thing ever is happening all at the same time but what you are aware of and subjective experience is dependent on what your consciousness is allowing you to experience. This answers a lot of questions about reality and a lot of interesting things people think about life such as are there aliens is God real etc etc what it like are there multiverses is time travel possible you know the answer to all the questions in a serious sense not just a hypothetical or imagined sense. But in a serious insincere sense. What might be fiction to one reality is an actuality in another reality. Every story you've ever told every thought you've ever had every Wonder every dream every hope every scary thing every horrible thing every bad thing every hopeless thing every impossible thing that you've ever thought can and is being experienced by some consciousness in this very moment. This is not metaphor. I am saying that everything is happening always. This is sincere. My claim is that everything is happening always. However, individual Consciousness only permits you to experience at a time specific reality.

I have come to this conclusion after meta-analyzing everything I've ever thought about before including thought including reality including perspective including fiction including video games including religion including truth including morality including YouTube poop including the ridiculous nature of things including bigotry including good and evil including the pie that I ate including the fart that I sniff on a Wednesday including every single piece of everything that I've ever experienced and thinking about it. Incorporating every single thought and experience that I had into some sort of amalgamation has led me to this conclusion. I understand that this seems ridiculous. But I'm not really trying to make you change your views or anything like that I am just doing this because I want I suppose or whatever way you would like to think about it.

Personally I think that's my narrative and explanation are quite defensible and profound but I completely understand how it seems and I also understand the presentation of what I'm saying here isn't very pretty which makes the ideas hard to appreciate possibly.

It's like covering a diamond in complete dog s\*\*\* and handling it to someone and saying "look it's pretty good ain't it."

------

Preliminary Q&A

Possible logical prose. And questions.

What you're saying is indeterminable: under some frameworks true, under some frameworks indeterminable, under some frameworks false.

Something that is indeterminable has no serious value: under some frameworks true, under some frameworks in determinable, under some frameworks false. Conscious framework by framework I am like abstracting the framework as a framework is reality.

Are you being literal or metaphorical: literal

Godel's incompleteness theorem applies to mathematics not physics or real life: the principles of photos incompleteness theorem are derived from the same principles that are involved in this framework. I am not driving my conclusions from Godel's incompleteness theorem, Godel's incompleteness theorem and my understanding of reality and everything ever stem from a similar understanding of things. Basically, my theory is not a direct ancestral descendant of Godel's idea, I would say that it is more akin being ancestral cousins and that both our theories are derivative of a general theory.

If your theory is a derivative of another theory how can you call this Theory the grand unified theory of everything: popular logical frameworks will you my argument as invalid because they're logical framework isn't encompassing enough to register my argument as an existent or possibly conceptual one.

Your theory might be logically valid, but because it cannot be verified as sound it isn't true: being a sound argument within popular contemporary logical frameworks isn't necessarily for truth.

Feel free to ask anything.

The universe is infinite in data amount and data variety. Within the universe there are infinite simultaneous realities which are all wholly integrated yet can be partitioned and seemingly distinct. What type of data your Consciousness allows you to perceive dictates the level of reality that you exist in. Within a given reality there will be things that are inexplicable because your Consciousness is only aware or capable of being aware of specific data types. You will notice that there are phenomenon in your reality which cannot be explained just by the data type that's available to your consciousness. Because your data type interacts with other data types but you lack awareness of the other data types there will be seemingly inexplicable reasons for why things in your reality happen. With this understanding of the universe you can understand that everything is happening all at the same time every single conceivable thing ever is happening all at the same time but what you are aware of and subjective experience is dependent on what your consciousness is allowing you to experience. This answers a lot of questions about reality and a lot of interesting things people think about life such as are there aliens is God real etc etc what it like are there multiverses is time travel possible you know the answer to all the questions in a serious sense not just a hypothetical or imagined sense. But in a serious insincere sense. What might be fiction to one reality is an actuality in another reality. Every story you've ever told every thought you've ever had every Wonder every dream every hope every scary thing every horrible thing every bad thing every hopeless thing every impossible thing that you've ever thought can and is being experienced by some consciousness in this very moment. This is not metaphor. I am saying that everything is happening always. This is sincere. My claim is that everything is happening always. However, individual Consciousness only permits you to experience at a time specific reality.

I have come to this conclusion after meta-analyzing everything I've ever thought about before including thought including reality including perspective including fiction including video games including religion including truth including morality including YouTube poop including the ridiculous nature of things including bigotry including good and evil including the pie that I ate including the fart that I sniff on a Wednesday including every single piece of everything that I've ever experienced and thinking about it. Incorporating every single thought and experience that I had into some sort of amalgamation has led me to this conclusion. I understand that this seems ridiculous. But I'm not really trying to make you change your views or anything like that I am just doing this because I want I suppose or whatever way you would like to think about it.

Personally I think that's my narrative and explanation are quite defensible and profound but I completely understand how it seems and I also understand the presentation of what I'm saying here isn't very pretty which makes the ideas hard to appreciate possibly.

It's like covering a diamond in complete dog s\*\*\* and handling it to someone and saying "look it's pretty good ain't it."

Grand unified theory of everything

The universe is infinite in data amount and data variety. Within the universe there are infinite simultaneous realities which are all wholly integrated yet can be partitioned and seemingly distinct. What type of data your Consciousness allows you to perceive dictates the level of reality that you exist in. Within a given reality there will be things that are inexplicable because your Consciousness is only aware or capable of being aware of specific data types. You will notice that there are phenomenon in your reality which cannot be explained just by the data type that's available to your consciousness. Because your data type interacts with other data types but you lack awareness of the other data types there will be seemingly inexplicable reasons for why things in your reality happen. With this understanding of the universe you can understand that everything is happening all at the same time every single conceivable thing ever is happening all at the same time but what you are aware of and subjective experience is dependent on what your consciousness is allowing you to experience. This answers a lot of questions about reality and a lot of interesting things people think about life such as are there aliens is God real etc etc what it like are there multiverses is time travel possible you know the answer to all the questions in a serious sense not just a hypothetical or imagined sense. But in a serious insincere sense. What might be fiction to one reality is an actuality in another reality. Every story you've ever told every thought you've ever had every Wonder every dream every hope every scary thing every horrible thing every bad thing every hopeless thing every impossible thing that you've ever thought can and is being experienced by some consciousness in this very moment. This is not metaphor. I am saying that everything is happening always. This is sincere. My claim is that everything is happening always. However, individual Consciousness only permits you to experience at a time specific reality.

I have come to this conclusion after meta-analyzing everything I've ever thought about before including thought including reality including perspective including fiction including video games including religion including truth including morality including YouTube poop including the ridiculous nature of things including bigotry including good and evil including the pie that I ate including the fart that I sniff on a Wednesday including every single piece of everything that I've ever experienced and thinking about it. Incorporating every single thought and experience that I had into some sort of amalgamation has led me to this conclusion. I understand that this seems ridiculous. But I'm not really trying to make you change your views or anything like that I am just doing this because I want I suppose or whatever way you would like to think about it.

Personally I think that's my narrative and explanation are quite defensible and profound but I completely understand how it seems and I also understand the presentation of what I'm saying here isn't very pretty which makes the ideas hard to appreciate possibly.

It's like covering a diamond in complete dog s\*\*\* and handling it to someone and saying "look it's pretty good ain't it."

(correct me if my understanding is wrong please)

Scientists notice "drift" or "inaccuracy" in desired answers when letting a query have "excessive" compute and time.

I threw that narrative away and drew a new narrative.

"Given more time and compute a model will undergo procedural metaification of the original query"

I think with this philosophy, there can be utility in the perceived drift or inaccuracy of LLMs with excessive resources. This metaification could be very useful in places where abstraction is useful. In mathematics there have been and are attempts at unifying the seeming separate branches of math into something more cohesive: langland's program. Perhaps it would be useful to try and harness this effect of LLMs.

I think more research should be done on the thought.

​

(Correct me if my understanding is wrong please)

Scientists notice "drift" or "inaccuracy" in desired answers when letting a query have "excessive" compute and time.

I threw that narrative away and drew a new narrative.

"Given more time and compute a model will undergo procedural metaification of the original query"

I think with this philosophy, there can be utility in the perceived drift or inaccuracy of LLMs with excessive resources. This metaification could be very useful in places where abstraction is useful. In mathematics there have been and are attempts at unifying the seeming separate branches of math into something more cohesive: langland's program. Perhaps it would be useful to try and harness this effect of LLMs.

I think more research should be done on the thought.

FSIQ can only answer something like "are you smart?" But its useless to use it to gauge your possible ability on something specific. FSIQ is incredibly abstract and it couldn't tell you if you'd make a decent lawyer, scientist or whatever.

Sub-index scores, and a composition overview of your sub-index scores offers you an infinitely richer narrative than a simple FSIQ interpretation could ever provide.

For example you can have a 130 FSIQ and you can have someone else who's 130 FSIQ, they might be similarly gifted at something and there may be discrepancy in other things.

This is how you can have someone who's 130 IQ but seem inept at things which you think "smart" people should be good at. You can be 130 FSIQ and barely grasp mathematics. You can be 130 FSIQ and suck at verbal comprehension.

If you're trying to understand your own ability, please take a deliberate approach of analysis of your indices rather than looking at a single FSIQ number and trying to analyze yourself from just that.

(Correct me if my understanding is wrong please)

Scientists notice "drift" or "inaccuracy" in desired answers when letting a query have "excessive" compute and time.

I threw that narrative away and drew a new narrative.

"Given more time and compute a model will undergo procedural metaification of the original query"

I think with this philosophy, there can be utility in the perceived drift or inaccuracy of LLMs with excessive resources. This metaification could be very useful in places where abstraction is useful. In mathematics there have been and are attempts at unifying the seeming separate branches of math into something more cohesive: langland's program. Perhaps it would be useful to try and harness this effect of LLMs.

I think more research should be done on the thought.