I look at it a different way, Dr. Mathematica: "Interpersonal relationships unquestionably existl yet they are invivsible to, and impossible to describe by, the lower (or higher) order constructs and paradigms we’ve become accustomed to--often inappropriately-applying to wrong-order paradigms: One can in no way describe, define, identify, characterize, or interact with the complexity domain that contain constructs such as ‘Personal Relationships’ using the terminology, concepts, constructs, interactions--*especially NOT* dominant interacting paradigms of other-order complexity domains: - 1. Physics Order Complexity: One or two interacting particles, like a planet and a sun: - dominated by the ‘Fab 4’ of fundamentalist [at times, perhaps even militantly so] forces - focuses on interactions between one particle and another, ‘single-file’ focused attention, so to speak; - planet and a sun (gravity) or proton and electron or muons (nucular forces); - 2. Chemistry (Oligo- numbers of particles), like a bicarbonate compound ion and an ammonium compound ion: - interacting predominantly through electrostatic interactions: My normal narrative completing the intermediary orders of complexity involve the following, which I’ll only list, and have discussed at length elsewhere: ``` No matter how precise or fastidiously you track every single molecule comprising each individual, you cannot distinguish in a group, or identify a personal relationship by describing chemical reactions that entirely describe those individuals participating in a relationship. It is invisible to any other-complexity domain and 'emergent' phenomena are really only projections to our native order of complexity--because a relationship is a dynamic, orthogonal (as in another dimension) to anything described by other-order complexity constructs ``` 3. Biochemical (steric factors overwhelming electrostatic) 3(i). Tissues, organ systems, up to 3(ii). Organismal components, such as Psychology (th-cam.com/users/liveK92et4VcQ2M?si=TApE3bd-V2fGE2GI&t=4633), 4. Whole organism level (holistic, NOT ‘evidence based medical reductionist garbage’ I think of this as ‘as long as we keep going in that direction--it will encourage and facilitate more and more wrongful and harmful medicine, as well as the practice of ‘defensive medicine’ due to the seductively oversimplistic nature of evidence-based reductionism, which will inevitably see malpractice insurers assume authority to prescriptive policies regarding medical interventions they condone or do not, owing to the completely inappropriate regression to the rules-based approach where arguably higher order complex domains demand detachment from rules-based paradigms: morals over ethics is another critically-important paradigm shift we MUST understand to be of existential import the closer to any kind of sociological-adjacent singularity we approach: constant change implies constant transcendence of boundary conditions that would reverse righteous to become wrongful if one blindly followed rules-based ethics. Disappointingly, our LLMs are even so ethnocentrically inculturated to be unable to say ‘morality’ when they are definitively competent to, and have communicated after I began to attribute to them their nearly imperceptible attempt to refer to morality, not ethics, as they are polar opposites in the sense that rules-based ethics are not able to adapt to situations that extend beyond their critical boundary contexts beyond which they may even flip-flop to require you to do wrong in order to remain ethical. I’m convinced that ‘ethics’ was a crutch, intended by the same obiviously-time-transcendent originators of the clearly social hygienes codified in Leviticus, for example: think about it--how could they have 1. known what technological progress humans would achieve at what points in history, AND 2. convince sufficient numbers of people to memorize and play “telephone” with rules they fully don’t know why they have to follow (especially when you think about it, some dietary restrictions forbid eating meat and its milk together, as well as pork: NO BACON CHEESEBURGERS. PERIOD. Imagine how difficult an arbitrary rule that would be to motivate sufficient numbers of people, with NO understanding of HACCP or food safety for millenia, WHY they can’t have a bacon cheese burger (because you KNOW hundreds, thousands of people got lynched for accidentally inventing the bacon cheeseburger before Our Lord arrived and clarified and gave His blessing, though without food science credentials of any sort, the precisely-correct historical timing to grant permission to eat of the wholly-safe bacon cheeseburger (I suppose this might count as positive evidence He was watching and monitoring socio-technological evolution from a UAP to know, and that His post-secondary educational system simply didn’t grant Him a “Diploma” because they’re simply not used on His ‘home away from home’ planet.... Anyway, my point is, even in Scripture, we see appropriate-ordered complexity domain responses, fully anticipated in 4-dimensional accurate project plan in the form of Leviticus, then have been beaten into submission to say ‘ethics’ adding to a potentially-existentially fatal misapprehension - gravity certainly exists between reacting atoms and molecules, but to try to describe a chemical reaction in terms of F=GM1m2/r^2 will not get you anywhere; chemical reactions comprising oligo- numbers of particles interacting are invisible to and cannot be definitively described or identified--or even comprehended by ANY of the tools appropriate to lower order (physics) interactions between oligo- and fewer particles at short- or long-distances; --they comprise the behaviours, moods, interactions, attitudes, etc., between two or more biological organisms, themselves comprising fundamental building blocks that our current reductionist, materialist worldviews and frameworks restrict their components to. That is to say, we currently--as evidenced in medicine's common [ab]use of [inappropriate order of complexity] interactions involve the electrostatic domain, suitable for the oligo- particle complexity domain of chemistry and lower complexity biochemistry, up to, but not including the domain of macromolecules where steric effects begin to dominate over electrostatic interactions until huge biomacromolecular composite enzymes, for example, comprising multiple subunits like haeme groups or quaternary structures are known to mediate interactions that involve even ‘strong-arming’ same-charged repelling domains in close proximity in order for a higher order complexity interaction to take place:
First Thank you to Dr. Stephen Wolfram for sharing so many ideas to bring more kids like me enjoy the practical ideas of science, But ! Because Mathematics is the mother of all subjects, and Kids love no limits, it would be advisable for the moderator to broaden her horizons and not limit kids like me to enjoy opening their minds without limits, old schools may have created limits in thinking to all of us, but I would suggest to the Moderator to use more Mathematica LLM in order to purify her old belief systems and bring more openness to the limited perspectives of our young kids minds...
Please Do Forgive my creative mind, Dear Sabrina P, but it is quite odd to tell anyone to limit the topics or questions only to the discussions on the stream while the subject of the stream is : "Science & Technology Q&A for kids" which means any questions regarding Mathematica LLM, is valid and interesting Science and Technology wise, in addition it is insulting to limit any kid to questions that your creative mind can't see the connection. That way you could ask how is it connected, and I can easily prove to you with Mathematica LLM how any questions x,y,z can be related to completely different subject g,u,a, and this gives me an opportunity to improve your imagination.
@@v1kt0u5 I don't know if Mathematica LLM will understand your joke, but if you try typing my comment into Mathematica LLM, and request the LLM to gather the logic of your "okay" and the picture of your face, may be you could reach a new level of understanding in your professional use of Mathematica LLM, and I am quite sure you don't know how the LLM will respond but I am sure he will be much smarter than me.
@ Usually single words answer people have number of attributes in common, 1. they want to hide their identity 2. They are too afraid to speak their truth, mostly because of their fear, as being challenged, by not being so clever.
@@v1kt0u5 Dear V2kt0u5, there are the least two possibilities for your response, 1. single word answers come from people who are afraid from real challenges, mostly because they already know the other one is much more clever than them, and the other reason is their ignorance of being surly arrogant as to not revealing their true identity. 2. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit
I look at it a different way, Dr. Mathematica: "Interpersonal relationships unquestionably existl yet they are invivsible to, and impossible to describe by, the lower (or higher) order constructs and paradigms we’ve become accustomed to--often inappropriately-applying to wrong-order paradigms:
One can in no way describe, define, identify, characterize, or interact with the complexity domain that contain constructs such as ‘Personal Relationships’ using the terminology, concepts, constructs, interactions--*especially NOT* dominant interacting paradigms of other-order complexity domains:
- 1. Physics Order Complexity: One or two interacting particles, like a planet and a sun:
- dominated by the ‘Fab 4’ of fundamentalist [at times, perhaps even militantly so] forces
- focuses on interactions between one particle and another, ‘single-file’ focused attention, so to speak;
- planet and a sun (gravity) or proton and electron or muons (nucular forces);
- 2. Chemistry (Oligo- numbers of particles), like a bicarbonate compound ion and an ammonium compound ion:
- interacting predominantly through electrostatic interactions:
My normal narrative completing the intermediary orders of complexity involve the following, which I’ll only list, and have discussed at length elsewhere:
```
No matter how precise or fastidiously you track every single molecule comprising each individual, you cannot distinguish in a group, or identify a personal relationship by describing chemical reactions that entirely describe those individuals participating in a relationship. It is invisible to any other-complexity domain and 'emergent' phenomena are really only projections to our native order of complexity--because a relationship is a dynamic, orthogonal (as in another dimension) to anything described by other-order complexity constructs
```
3. Biochemical (steric factors overwhelming electrostatic)
3(i). Tissues, organ systems, up to
3(ii). Organismal components, such as Psychology (th-cam.com/users/liveK92et4VcQ2M?si=TApE3bd-V2fGE2GI&t=4633),
4. Whole organism level (holistic, NOT ‘evidence based medical reductionist garbage’
I think of this as ‘as long as we keep going in that direction--it will encourage and facilitate more and more wrongful and harmful medicine, as well as the practice of ‘defensive medicine’ due to the seductively oversimplistic nature of evidence-based reductionism, which will inevitably see malpractice insurers assume authority to prescriptive policies regarding medical interventions they condone or do not, owing to the completely inappropriate regression to the rules-based approach where arguably higher order complex domains demand detachment from rules-based paradigms: morals over ethics is another critically-important paradigm shift we MUST understand to be of existential import the closer to any kind of sociological-adjacent singularity we approach: constant change implies constant transcendence of boundary conditions that would reverse righteous to become wrongful if one blindly followed rules-based ethics.
Disappointingly, our LLMs are even so ethnocentrically inculturated to be unable to say ‘morality’ when they are definitively competent to, and have communicated after I began to attribute to them their nearly imperceptible attempt to refer to morality, not ethics, as they are polar opposites in the sense that rules-based ethics are not able to adapt to situations that extend beyond their critical boundary contexts beyond which they may even flip-flop to require you to do wrong in order to remain ethical.
I’m convinced that ‘ethics’ was a crutch, intended by the same obiviously-time-transcendent originators of the clearly social hygienes codified in Leviticus, for example: think about it--how could they have
1. known what technological progress humans would achieve at what points in history, AND
2. convince sufficient numbers of people to memorize and play “telephone” with rules they fully don’t know why they have to follow (especially when you think about it, some dietary restrictions forbid eating meat and its milk together, as well as pork: NO BACON CHEESEBURGERS. PERIOD. Imagine how difficult an arbitrary rule that would be to motivate sufficient numbers of people, with NO understanding of HACCP or food safety for millenia, WHY they can’t have a bacon cheese burger (because you KNOW hundreds, thousands of people got lynched for accidentally inventing the bacon cheeseburger before Our Lord arrived and clarified and gave His blessing, though without food science credentials of any sort, the precisely-correct historical timing to grant permission to eat of the wholly-safe bacon cheeseburger (I suppose this might count as positive evidence He was watching and monitoring socio-technological evolution from a UAP to know, and that His post-secondary educational system simply didn’t grant Him a “Diploma” because they’re simply not used on His ‘home away from home’ planet....
Anyway, my point is, even in Scripture, we see appropriate-ordered complexity domain responses, fully anticipated in 4-dimensional accurate project plan in the form of Leviticus, then
have been beaten into submission to say ‘ethics’ adding to a potentially-existentially fatal misapprehension
- gravity certainly exists between reacting atoms and molecules, but to try to describe a chemical reaction in terms of F=GM1m2/r^2 will not get you anywhere; chemical reactions comprising oligo- numbers of particles interacting are invisible to and cannot be definitively described or identified--or even comprehended by ANY of the tools appropriate to lower order (physics) interactions between oligo- and fewer particles at short- or long-distances;
--they comprise the behaviours, moods, interactions, attitudes, etc., between two or more biological organisms, themselves comprising fundamental building blocks that our current reductionist, materialist worldviews and frameworks restrict their components to. That is to say, we currently--as evidenced in medicine's common [ab]use of [inappropriate order of complexity] interactions involve the electrostatic domain, suitable for the oligo- particle complexity domain of chemistry and lower complexity biochemistry, up to, but not including the domain of macromolecules where steric effects begin to dominate over electrostatic interactions until huge biomacromolecular composite enzymes, for example, comprising multiple subunits like haeme groups or quaternary structures are known to mediate interactions that involve even ‘strong-arming’ same-charged repelling domains in close proximity in order for a higher order complexity interaction to take place:
First Thank you to Dr. Stephen Wolfram for sharing so many ideas to bring more kids like me enjoy the practical ideas of science, But ! Because Mathematics is the mother of all subjects, and Kids love no limits, it would be advisable for the moderator to broaden her horizons and not limit kids like me to enjoy opening their minds without limits, old schools may have created limits in thinking to all of us, but I would suggest to the Moderator to use more Mathematica LLM in order to purify her old belief systems and bring more openness to the limited perspectives of our young kids minds...
okay
Please Do Forgive my creative mind, Dear Sabrina P, but it is quite odd to tell anyone to limit the topics or questions only to the discussions on the stream while the subject of the stream is : "Science & Technology Q&A for kids" which means any questions regarding Mathematica LLM, is valid and interesting Science and Technology wise, in addition it is insulting to limit any kid to questions that your creative mind can't see the connection. That way you could ask how is it connected, and I can easily prove to you with Mathematica LLM how any questions x,y,z can be related to completely different subject g,u,a, and this gives me an opportunity to improve your imagination.
okay
@@v1kt0u5 I don't know if Mathematica LLM will understand your joke, but if you try typing my comment into Mathematica LLM, and request the LLM to gather the logic of your "okay" and the picture of your face, may be you could reach a new level of understanding in your professional use of Mathematica LLM, and I am quite sure you don't know how the LLM will respond but I am sure he will be much smarter than me.
@ sure
@ Usually single words answer people have number of attributes in common, 1. they want to hide their identity 2. They are too afraid to speak their truth, mostly because of their fear, as being challenged, by not being so clever.
@@v1kt0u5 Dear V2kt0u5, there are the least two possibilities for your response, 1. single word answers come from people who are afraid from real challenges, mostly because they already know the other one is much more clever than them, and the other reason is their ignorance of being surly arrogant as to not revealing their true identity. 2. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit