Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
Last week's thread
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)
OK to start us off how about some Simulation Hypothesis crankery I found posted on ActivityPub: Do we live in a computer simulation? (Article), The second law of infodynamics and its implications for the simulated universe hypothesis (PDF)
Someone who's actually good at physics could do a better job of sneering at this than me, but I mean but look at this:
This feels like quackery but I can't find a goal...
There it is.
Edit: oh God it's worse than I thought
The web design almost makes me nostalgic for geocities fan pages. The citations that include himself ~10 times and the greatest hits of the last 50 years of physics, biology, and computer science, and Baudrillard of course. The journal of which this author is the lead editor and which includes the phrase "information as the fifth state of matter" in the scope description.
Oh God the deeper I dig the weirder it gets. Trying to confirm whether the Information Physics Institute is legit at all and found their list of members, one of whom listed their relevant expertise as "Writer, Roleplayer, Singer, Actor, Gamer". Another lists "Hyperspace and machine elves". One very honestly simply says "N/A"
I am not making this up.
The Gmail address also lends the whole thing an air of authority. Like, you've already paid for the domain, guys.
I love the word cloud on the side. What is 6G doing there
6G nanometer-wave, gently caressing your mitochondria thanks to the power of antiferromagnets and BORIS:
OK this membe list experience is just 👨🍳😗👌
Perfect. No notes.
I haven't seen qualifications this relevant and high-quality since "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth."
the terrible tryfecta
Still a bit sad we are not doing nano anymore.
You see, nano is real now and boring
But things being real doesn't stop the cranks. See quantum.
Quantum superpredicting machines are not real, and that's what they're about. Nano- has lots of uninteresting bs like ultraefficient fluorescent things, but nanomachines are not and that was interesting to them (until they got bored)
Wait for AI and Crypto 2.0 to burn out, we'll get there
I had a flash of a vision of tomorrow, it is Nano crypto AI
Sadly it seems the next one is gonna be Quantum.
Finally computer science is a real field, there are cranks! Suck it physics and mathematics, we are a real boy now!
Has this person turned up shilling their book on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory yet? If not, I think it's a lock for 2025
lol
I sneered that in a blog post last year, as it happens.
"feel free to ignore any science “news” that’s just a press release from the guy who made it up."
Gotta love "science" that is cited by no-one and cites the author's previous work which was also cited by no one. Really the media should do better about not giving cranks an authoritative sounding platform, but that would lead to slightly fewer eyes on ads and we can't have that now can we.
i mean, the Ray Charles one sounds fun. My 1st year maths lecturer demonstrated the importance of not dividing by zero by mathematically proving that if 1=0, then he was Brigitte Bardot. We did actually applaud.
General sneer against the SH: I choose to dismiss it entirely for the same reason that I dismiss solipsism or brain-in-a-vat-ism: it’s a non-starter. Either it’s false and we’ve gotta come up with better ideas for all this shit we’re in, or it’s true and nothing is real, so why bother with philosophical or metaphysical inquiry?
The "simulation hypothesis" is an ego flex for men who want God to look like them.
Since the Middle ages we've reduced God's divine realm from the glorious kingdom of heaven to an office chair in front of a computer screen, rather than an office chair behind it.
The SH is catnip to "scientific types" who don't recognize it as a rebrand of classical metaphysics. After all, they know how computers work, and it can't be that hard to simulate the entire workings of a universe down to the quark level, can it? So surely someone just a bit smarter than themselves have already done it and are running a simulation with them in it. It's basically elementary!
If you think about it, a slice of pizza is basically a computer that simulates a slice of pizza down the quark level.
Ha very clever, but as quantum level effects only occur when somebody is looking at it, they dont have to simulate it at quark level all the time. I watched what the bleep do we know, im very smart.
You're missing the most obvious implication, though. If it's all simulated or there's a Cartesian demon afflicting me then none of you have any moral weight. Even more importantly if we assume that the SH is true then it means I'm smarter than you because I thought of it first (neener neener).
But this quickly runs into the 'don't create your own unbreakable crypto system' problem. There are people out there who are a lot smarter who quickly can point out the holes in these simulation arguments. (The smartest of whom go 'nah, that is dumb' sadly I'm not that enlightened, as I have argued a few times here before how this is all amateur theology, and has nothing to do with STEM/computer science (E: my gripes are mostly with the 'ancestor simulation' theory however)).
If you're in the mood for a novel that dunks on these nerds, I highly recommend Jason Pargin's If This Book Exists, You're in the Wrong Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Book_Exists,_You%27re_in_the_Wrong_Universe
oh damn, I just gave the (fun but absolute mess of a) movie another watch and was wondering if they ever wrote more stories in the series — I knew they wrote a sequel to John Dies at the End, but I lost track of it after that. it looks like I’ve got a few books to pick up!
Someone (maybe you) recommended this book here awhile back. But it's the fourth book in a series so I had to read the other three first and so have only just now started it.
https://awful.systems/post/2876657
You're doing the ~~lord's~~ simulation-author's work, my friend.
I don’t have the time to deep dive this RN but information dynamics or infodynamics looks to be, let’s say, “alternative science” for the purposes of trying to up the credibility of the simulation hypothesis.
How sneerable is the entire "infodynamics" field? Because it seems like it should be pretty sneerable. The first referenced paper on the "second law of infodynamics" seems to indicate that information has some kind of concrete energy which brings to mind that experiment where they tried to weigh someone as they died to identify the mass of the human soul. Also it feels like a gross misunderstanding to describe a physical system as gaining or losing information in the Shannon framework since unless the total size of the possibility space is changing there's not a change in total information. Like, all strings of 100 characters have the same level of information even though only a very few actually mean anything in a given language. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the amount of information in a system increasing or decreasing naturally outside of data loss in transmission? IDK I'm way out of my depth here but it smells like BS and the limited pool of citations doesn't build confidence.
I read one of the papers. About the specific question you have: given a string of bits s, they're making the choice to associate the empirical distribution to s, as if s was generated by an iid Bernoulli process. So if s has 10 zero bits and 30 one bits, its associated empirical distribution is Ber(3/4). This is the distribution which they're calculating the entropy of. I have no idea on what basis they are making this choice.
The rest of the paper didn't make sense to me - they are somehow assigning a number N of "information states" which can change over time as the memory cells fail. I honestly have no idea what it's supposed to mean and kinda suspect the whole thing is rubbish.
Edit: after reading the author's quotes from the associated hype article I'm 100% sure it's rubbish. It's also really funny that they didn't manage to catch the COVID-19 research hype train so they've pivoted to the simulation hypothesis.
Oh the author here is absolutely a piece of work.
Here's an interview where he's talking about the biblical support for all of this and the ancient Greek origins of blah blah blah.
I can't definitely predict this guy's career trajectory, but one of those cults where they have to wear togas is not out of the question.
Not only is the universe a simulation, the Catholics just had it right, isnt that neat.