Is Musk's red car a spaceship btw? Because if we are able to send such stuff to space, other intelligent beings would most probably do the same. Or they are more intelligent?
I don't get the point. The article says that if you "somewhat" measure, then you lose "somewhat" from the wavelike nature. So the photon is a wave by X%, and a particle by 100-X%?
I had a similar feeling.
But I think this is indeed a glimpse to the intrinsic structure of reality itself, not just a promise of seeing reality. Like we can have a blink of turning around in Plato's cave.
I think the patterns of the Mandelbrot set is a similar thing. And there are only a handful of other things that shows the very basic structure of reality. And the encouraging thing is that it seems the core of reality is not an infinite void.
Recording yourself is not a violation, only publishing on Youtube.
Content generated with LLMs are not a violation. Publishing the content you generated might be.
Quotation is fair use in all sensible copyright system.
An LLM will mostly be able to quote anything, and should be. Quotation is not derived work. LLMs are not stealing copyrighted work.
They just show that Harry Potter is in English and a mostly logical story. If someone is stabbed, they will die in most stories, that's not copyrightable.
If you have an engine that knows everything, it will be able to quote everything.
Plus what must have been lost in 500 years, all photonegative pictures, fragments, descriptions, recipes, any references for such imagery etc. It is very strange that this is the only image that remained. And an image of a nude Jesus from the back. For which no other instance is known anywhere.
Yes, the wikipedia article makes an argumentation error. Even if the Pray Codex doesn't show the shroud, it contains a very unique depiction of a nude Jesus. So the painter of the codex with high probability have seen the exact same picture as what is on the Shroud now. This doesn't prove that the shroud is earlier than the Pray codex, but this is something an unbiased scientist have to try to answer. I find it very annoying that all these very scientific-looking articles never try to explain how the hell is it possible that the Pray codex contains a depiction of the dead Jesus in a way, of which the first known depiction is from a century later in a photonegative form. Not to mention the other ridiculous arguments, that the shroud is one from the enormous amount of medieval forgeries. Where are all the other photonegative shrouds and pictures. I personally don't think that a supernatural creator omniscient etc god would create a photo of his resurrecting son, but I am really annoyed by all that bad science around the shroud. Ok, the C14 is real, because they told so (yeah, science never tries to find contradicting evidence, never challenges previous knowledge or belief...) but then you could still use Occam's razor to find simple explanations for like the Pray Codex depiction. At least please try to explain, why the drawing there is so different to all other drawings of Jesus in that era.
The C14 dating is one evidence, and there are plenty of contradicting evidence for the 14th century dating. But my main point is that there is at least doubt for the 14th date, and any proper scientific approach should at least mention the codex.
The best explanation to what the codex depicts, is the shroud. Which could be a copy of an older shroud e.g., but the C14 dating has its flaws (burnt material etc.).
The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.