89
Can gzip be a language model? (nathan.rs)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago* (10 children)

Does it tell us something about reality if that’s true? I think it should… It reminds me of oneness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    I wouldn't necessarily say it "tells us something about reality", as the expression goes, but it is useful in describing reality. Like the last statement of waves, which was supposed to be an spaced out exageration, is how much of physics is built. You look at something and wonder how to describe it. Sometimes it make sense to start with a single pulse, wave, or oscillator, which does not solve it completely and so you add more perturbations to it. You do this sort of stuff basically everywhere in physics. Everywhere else, some other correspondence usually appear. In computer science you use hard problems to design cryptos, physics gets stuck at the same problems. String theory uses algebraic geometry and end up with models where the areas they cannot solve is where elliptic curve crypos come from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    The "everything is waves" part, yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    But can everything be waves? Waves need to propagate through a substrate… so if everything is a wave, what is space?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Now we're getting into linguistics with the question of "what is a wave?"

    In quantum physics, basically everything is waves, in the sense that the same mathematical formulae used to describe waves are used to describe quantum phenomena. The intuitive human-scale dynamics of waves don't necessarily apply though.

    For example, sound waves can't propagate through a vacuum, but light waves can. Aside from that, they follow mostly the same rules. You can use the same math the describe interference of sound waves and light waves, for example.

    People talk about the "particle/wave duality" of photons because in some ways they behave like waves and in some ways they behave like particles. But both of those words are stretched a little from their everyday plain-english usage, and the precise reality would require years of study to understand.

    Plain English wasn't made to be that precise or objective. That's why we use math. :)

    I'm no expert in quantum physics so take this all with a grain of salt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Thanks for the thorough reply!

    What I’m gathering is that “wave” can refer to a behavioral pattern that is substrate independent — it refers to a logical function more than it does an ontological presence. That said, quantum waves are a substrate that exists beneath the material manifestations you and I experience (called a “wave” more-or-less for its mathematical properties)?

    If that’s fair, would it be correct to call the quantum wave a “substrate” as I did?

    and you know another thing about quantum field theory I don’t quite understand… I think it still depends on a four dimensional backdrop universe, for these fields to pervade. That fourth dimension is time, which is function of entropy. If time exists, that means the backdrop isn’t static — it evolves. That means it needs a fundamental explanation as well, something more than being just a background. No?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    What I’m gathering is that “wave” can refer to a behavioral pattern that is substrate independent — it refers to a logical function more than it does an ontological presence

    I think that's a good way of putting it.

    As for what counts as a "substrate", I have no idea! In the old days, the idea of a substance that permeated seemingly-empty space was common. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

    Nowadays, the idea of aether has been discarded for the most part. But that said, there's still plenty we don't understand, like dark matter. There's no consensus on what dark matter is exactly; there are many competing theories. What we know is that there are observable phenomena that can't be explained without something that acts (roughly, at least) like matter in terms of its effect on gravity, but doesn't interact with electromagnetism like normal matter. That "something" is called dark matter, but its fundamental nature is an open question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Subatomic particles are waves of probability.

    It is worth looking up the Wave Equation and meditating on the fact that waves are solutions to a problem/set of conditions around conservation of energy.

    It is an open ended definition not one that points out a discrete thing.

    Surface waves for example such as Rayleigh Waves and Love Waves are solutions to the conservation of energy of a wave that cannot propagate past a free surface and thus energy in that direction must be conserved some other way through the solution of a surface wave.

    https://visualpde.com/basic-pdes/wave-equation.html

    https://visualpde.com/sim/?preset=waveEquation

    ^this is really fun I found it by accident because of this post.

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

    The second derivative (the acceleration) of energy in terms of time t is equal to a constant multiplied by the second derivative of energy in terms of distance x...

    It suggests a basic back and forth transformation or equivalence at the heart of it, a wave is a relation embodied within physical constraints.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Everything isn't waves, rather things happen as a summation of all probabilities in a wavefunction unless bounded by imposing factors that force the phenomena of particles... meaning everything perhaps could behave as waves depending on the situation and details. It is the default background tendency until absolute limitations are imposed on a system through measurement or interaction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent