nchagnet

I don't even know where to start .

> It’s important to note that there is a universal range of all mathematical functions: they can only output…. well, numbers.

That isn't even remotely true. Not even digging far, you have higher order functions which takes functions as arguments. You have functions on more abstract algebraic sets.

> You will never see a calculator give you the word “buttercup” or the symbol “” be the output of a function, nor will a sufficiently complex function arise that outputs not just a non-numerical character, but say, a living animal or a distinct smell. You could devise a machine that outputs non-mathematical things when a function takes a certain input, but that is something built outside of this formal system which is the pure realm and ontology of math. Math has a certain ontology which cannot create from itself something of a new or different ontology. This is obvious.

A smell is chemical reaction in your nose between two molecules which triggers a certain electrical impulse propagated to your neurons. You can _argue_ that what happens then is outside the ontology of the material world, but the fact that a smell is not a number has like zero connection to that, so you haven't proven squat.

> that unconscious and unspiritual cosmos of matter is precisely a massive material calculator, we should also realize that it as well cannot create a new distinct ontology out of itself alone—it cannot generate from itself something that is not a physical force of some type or complexity.

What do you mean by a calculator? How can the universe be a calculator if a calculator only deals with numbers (according to your reductive point) yet the universe is also comprised of things that's aren't numbers? You see how that doesn't work out? You can't take a reductive point of view when it suits you and contrast it with non-reductive statements just because.

Also what is "a physical force of some type or complexity" even about?

I'm going to stop here. This is worse than AI slop, it's nonsense.

Eh I would disagree on such a sharp distinction. Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are theories, and we know that both of them are not accurate descriptions at all scales.

Heck your descriptions of a model is also what we would call an effective theory (i.e. a description valid for a specific range of parameters/scale).

I don't think there's a commonly agreed difference between model and theory and I sure have heard many physicists use them interchangeably when it suits them (and I'm guilty of it myself). Perhaps theory feels 'wider', as in quantum theory encompasses models for many quantum systems, but that's as far as I'd go.

This is pretty cool, I still would prefer to just use jev as a library but neat concept!

Why not?

Out of all the LLM craze fueled websites, this is one of the most retro internet ones I've seen. Kudos!

This is such a high quality TV viewing experience, I really love it! Amazing work!

Checked out the free sample and it also screams LLM written.

I don't have a problem with using llms for projects per se if it helps, so long as there is a vision, but why would anyone buy an introductory book to a popular language which the same llm could one-shot? What's the added value here?

That's just... false? You just go to Etos or Kruidvat for that.

> A personal reality sure, but that's not a reflection of the community.

You say, to the community, as it describes how it relates to the message.

You may not agree with it, but surely this thread among many should show you this view is not fringe or denial, but how a strong segment feels. I concede it's a divisive topic, some people feel optimistic, others less so. I myself don't fully know where I stand. I just don't agree with branding all of this as "unhinged nihilism".

Maybe 'journalism' wasn't the best suggestion by the OP but I have to disagree with the rest of your message. It may be a rant, or less pejoratively it may be a cry for help of someone seeing their industry's future, but I can't accept that it's not well written.

When is the last time you opened an HN comment section and the main comment was that people enjoyed the writing quality? Maybe it says more about what we usually read as a crowd, but to me this was a breath of fresh air, it was engaging but also quite deep at times.

I think the mark of great writing is that it makes an impression on you, on others, in a way casual writing doesn't. At least that's my take on this.

This seems really nice, I liked PicoCSS but I thought it had rough edges, I'm looking forward to give yours a try!

I completely agree, and I think this is also where I'm quite excited. This project's connection with ggplot , which has one of the most respected grammar for plotting, means that it would be in a good position to achieve what you describe.