There is a limit to everything

Remember hawking was wheel chair bound and couldnt wipe his own ass

negatives are only useful for relative scales

<a:OMEGAWHEELCHAIR:609098123914117121> ONE <a:OMEGAWHEELCHAIR:609098123914117121> LAST <a:OMEGAWHEELCHAIR:609098123914117121> RIDE <a:OMEGAWHEELCHAIR:609098123914117121>

Literally, the entire point of calculus is adding infinite sums

yes

an abstract concept

i.e. infinity(x) = False; infinity(x, ?) = True

https://tenor.com/view/toroidal-field-raibow-black-hole-gif-14722699

with x being the set of input variables in einsteins equations

anyways

all in all

there are terms we aren't including

my argument is that infinities dont exist in nature

Anyways, we were talking about free will and AI. What we term free will is really just a sufficiently complex set of billiard balls

correct

@Marushia Dark probably

it isn't about free will; it's about determinism

but it is not useful at all to think of it in those terms

one is the foundation to the other

🎱

and i can't see a valid argument for determinism

Like the black hole, it isn't infinite, we just lack the processing power to calculate it. Yet, we also know we're capable of programming deterministic machines to beat even the best humans in certain limited tasks, like Go, and then programming equally deterministic computers to learn from and beat those AIs

Am I a complex set of billiard balls?

What was that quote again?

@Grok, no, you're just a complex of balls

"Human brain is just chemical reactions, nothing special"
"Oh, but how you trust those chemicals to give such a conclusion!"

this is facinating in the way because i can 'see' the model in which you two are processing information

something loosely along those lines

I forgot the quote

MA, from whence derives free will?

again

@Marushia Dark And not know how our AI beats that GO player afterwards...Dumbfounded even the programmers.

free will is a human concept

if no determinism, then free will is axiomatic

this is like trying to use physics to explain biology

wrong tool for the wrong job

metaphysics 'bounds' the epistemology one is willing to consider

MA, just the reverse. Free will implies internal impulse (in the physics sense) absent some stimulus

'free will' assumes a god centric metaphysics that is determinitic

you technically *could* explain biology with physics alone