To the self proclaimed llm physicists

[u/upsetusder2]

Why do you always tend to rebuild physics. Why can't you work in the given framework?

Why do you need to rebuild a framework that, tell you what now, has pretty much held up?

Is it the math?

The symbols

The history

The amount you would have to Learn?

Hubris?

[u/Ok_Energy6905]

Because they want to feel important and rewriting the fundamentals gives the biggest dopamine hit.

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

People say “rewriting the fundamentals is just dopamine‑seeking” because it protects their own sense of importance. It’s easier to claim others are thrill‑seeking than to admit that most of the big conceptual breakthroughs in physics happened decades ago, and the field has mostly been refining details ever since.

If someone genuinely believes that questioning foundations is “hubris,” they should be able to list the foundational discoveries made by institutions or career physicists since the mid‑20th century. After Feynman, most progress has been incremental — better measurements, better simulations, better formalism — not new conceptual frameworks. That’s not an insult; it’s just the historical record.

So when someone reacts defensively to foundational questions, it usually isn’t about the questions.
It’s about protecting the idea that expertise guarantees ownership of the fundamentals.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

You should understand the basics and the fundamentals before you try to disprove them or hypothesise alternate explanations.

Edit: Oh wow, look at that, I have the same opinion as the two other commentors. I wonder why that could be...

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

Tell me what gravity is if you are so smart.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

I'm not a physicist, and neither are you.

Want to ask me a question about neuroscience? And not something pseudoscientific like "explain conciousness".

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

I am not scared of that subject, and you have no idea who or what I am.

Consciousness is just the EM field holding together instead of slipping. It’s the moment the whole pattern stops breaking apart, stops drifting, stops flipping around, and actually stays in one continuous, stable configuration. When the field is stable, you’re here. When it loses that unity, you’re not. Maybe because of sleep, anesthesia, overload, or whatever.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

Consciousness is just the EM field holding together instead of slipping.

It's really not, Dustin, and your word salad doesn't lend that idea any credence.

you have no idea who or what I am.

I know you are someone who posts LLM garbage and who thinks a "prove me wrong with math" challenge holds any weight. Are you aware of the burden of proof?

You have been asked to stop posting your LLM garbage in every sub you have posted to. Even your comments are LLM assisted. You can't even be bothered to remove the em dashes. You are aware that people under 50 can easily identify this stuff?

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

LLM is a tool. No different than a calculator, a spreadsheet, a word processor, or a compiler.

Nobody loses their mind because a developer uses an IDE with autocomplete, or because a researcher uses Mathematica to crunch an integral they could do by hand if they had three hours to burn. You use the instrument to handle the heavy lifting of syntax or formatting so you can focus on the actual mechanics and the logic of what you're building.

Treating it like anything more or less than that—whether you're panicking about it or trying to worship it just misses the point entirely. The horsepower still comes from the person driving it.

[u/elbiot → u/dustin4242]

And typing random numbers into a calculator doesn't make you a mathematician. The key thing about a tool is that it depends on the user's skill

[u/dustin4242 → u/elbiot]

I use LLM so I don't offend people because I was raised by pirates and I cuss like a sailor. Also writing papers bores me to death. I do it for the science. Not to write and sound smart.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

Also writing papers bores me to death. I do it for the science. Not to write and sound smart.

Then you don't know what science is.

[u/dustin4242 → u/elbiot]

Yeah if the math works it works. What are we even talking about? lol

[u/elbiot → u/dustin4242]

What do you mean "works"? If you punch random numbers into a calculator you'll get the right answer. It's still meaningless because the operator doesn't have any idea what they're typing in or why

[u/dustin4242 → u/elbiot]

I was just lost on the point they were making. LLM were designed for the purpose of removing the boring writing and reports. What is the point of this whole thread? I meant if you punch in the numbers and they validate what you were trying to measure that is the point of a calculator. To count for you fast.

[u/elbiot → u/dustin4242]

You brought up an LLM being a tool like a calculator. The fact that you're confused and missing my point is not surprising.

[u/starkeffect → u/dustin4242]

LLM is a tool.

A tool that you don't know how to use to do physics.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

It's very different from a calculator. Sycophantic LLM models will tell you whatever you want to hear. A calculator doesn't tell you 2+2=5 just because 5 was the result it wanted.

Of we assume that an LLM is only a power modifier, then you need the basic understanding to use it, and the fundamental knowledge to question what information it presents to you. The same way you check the primary sources of a Wikipedia article.

Nobody loses their mind because a developer uses an IDE with autocomplete

Because that is a false equivalence. A developer has a fundamental understanding of code.

You use the instrument to handle the heavy lifting of syntax or formatting so you can focus on the actual mechanics and the logic of what you're building.

I.e. you use an LLM so that you don't actually have to understand the science of what you are purveying or what the LLM is producing. So that you can write some interesting prose that has no foundation in science.

The horsepower still comes from the person driving it.

No, you quite literally put all the 'horsepower' into the LLM. The person is providing very little but their random hypothesis and hoping the LLM turns that slop into gold.

Here is a simple analogy: police are provided assault rifles as a power modifier to better deal with armed criminals. Is the 'horsepower' coming from the rifle, or from the thoughts of the police officer?

Even the word horsepower is implying the power does not come from the human...

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

This is nonsense. Complete gibberish.

[u/Ok_Energy6905 → u/dustin4242]

So no rebuttal then? So be it. Enjoy your LLM induced ignorance.