#universality — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #universality, aggregated by home.social.
-
@cas Oh, thxthx for the careful response! :blobcatfluffhappy:
So first of all, I did not say or imply that complexity is a completely or even a net negative thing. After all, there’s a reason we’re all in the FOSS communities in some form or another, and it’s how it allows anyone to participate in diverse ways of achieving similar goals, then finding common ground and sharing efforts, as you mention with pmOS. Very irregularly, rather chaotically (for better! or worse!), but it does happen. The main problems I got are with the margin of improvement for cooperation (via standardization, shared codebases and stacks, etc), as well with how the politics behind it all are translated into choice complexity for the newcomer — and thus liability that they ideally shouldn’t have. Opinionated projects are very much positive if not inevitable (otherwise you’re stuck with the contradictory goals of #neutrality and #universality, potentially grinding things to a halt or forcing to change course), and I’m not gonna nod along the “just do a single project” fallacy. It’s just that I think the community should accept and embrace collaboration, tradeoffs and consensus when it makes sense… so it’s good to know that there’s already some momentum towards that! :blobcateyes:
…hopefully everyone will indeed do their best. I know how discouragement and conflict can arise even between well-meaning parts (communication, ideals, personal lives…), let alone when not everyone’s on the same page ( :wooznix: ). But yeah, if that’s the case I do believe governance and results will follow and be much more empowering than just handing over that responsibility to Google or some other BDFL instead.
(P.S.: yeah I know the Linux stack consensus isn’t absolute, the “somewhat” wasn’t just about fd.o! :blobcatgooglyheadache: )
-
"it is more important than ever to understand the economic value of sound #publichealthcare policies in #Canada." https://centreforfuturework.ca/2025/06/17/the-economic-benefits-of-canadas-public-health-care-system/
-
Explore the intersection of data mining and many-body physics with Dr. Marcello Dalmonte from the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) and his first lecture of the 7-part series 'Data Mining the Many-body Problem.' Marcello is eager to answer your questions on Enabla, so don’t miss the chance to deepen your understanding through direct interaction!
🔗 Watch here: https://enabla.com/pub/702/about
Abstract: In this lecture, we focus on the intersection of data mining and the many-body problem, within the framework of statistical mechanics. We outline our motivations for leveraging advances in computational techniques to analyze large datasets generated by complex physical systems. We discuss concepts of universality across diverse fields and how they can inform our understanding of data structures. By exploring lattice models such as the two-dimensional Ising one, we aim to uncover universal behaviors that bridge physics and data science through innovative methodologies like unsupervised learning. This course seeks to equip participants with tools that highlight shared characteristics among seemingly disparate phenomena and are interested in understanding the many-body problem in terms of high-dimensional geometry concepts.
#DataScience #ManyBodyPhysics #StatisticalMechanics #Universality #OpenAccess
-
Rules are artificial so unnatural, patterns are within nature and us so they are natural.
#thougts #philosohy #science #discusion #nature #spirit #rebellion #think #pattern #universe #universality
-
Rules are artificial so unnatural, patterns are within nature and us so they are natural.
#thougts #philosohy #science #discusion #nature #spirit #rebellion #think #pattern #universe #universality
-
Rules are artificial so unnatural, patterns are within nature and us so they are natural.
#thougts #philosohy #science #discusion #nature #spirit #rebellion #think #pattern #universe #universality
-
Rules are artificial so unnatural, patterns are within nature and us so they are natural.
#thougts #philosohy #science #discusion #nature #spirit #rebellion #think #pattern #universe #universality
-
Rules are artificial so unnatural, patterns are within nature and us so they are natural.
#thougts #philosohy #science #discusion #nature #spirit #rebellion #think #pattern #universe #universality
-
Looking at some extracts, it appears as though Hilary and I differ in perspective (which is interesting!)
Here is a short sketch of relevant notes on the mathematics side. I can flesh out each point or section, but I'm curious to know how you think this sits together as is?
https://fragments.themanual.io/on-mathematics-map-and-territory/
What are we studying when we are doing mathematics?
-
A Systematic Approach to Universal Random Features in Graph Neural Networks
Billy Joe Franks, Markus Anders, Marius Kloft, Pascal Schweitzer
Action editor: Rémi Flamary.
-
The #IFLA Governing Board 2021-23 reaffirms its decision to hold the 2024 World Library and Information Congress in Dubai.
For me, the last two paragraphs of the message from IFLA are relevant. In particular, the question of how to reconcile #universality and #inclusiveness with #diversity. And then with the perhaps rather philosophical consideration of whether true universality and inclusiveness (can) exist.
-
3: 'Human Rights Pluralistic Universality: A Bridge Between Global Norms and Cultural Diversity' by https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2023.2216088
#humanrights #universality #cultural #diversity #standards #UDHR #internationallaw
-
@science_quotes @jcastroarnaud
I tried to make it general enough that anyone could respond, so no worries there.[Here's a post I just happened to see that talks about the importance of measuring principles, in the context of domestic abuse: https://c.im/@[email protected]e/109523214049642663 ]
The thing I could have emphasized more was the dual nature of the process. When we're stuck in one, the other will suffer.
So 'letting go' cuts both ways. As you point out, often times our models run into problems, and we have to make changes. The disagreement between #experiment and #theory is a big red flag.
The default seems to be to alter the theory in some way. This is not always bad, nor is it always right. The impetus for this is our confidence in the model, fueled by various factors. The farther back the model goes, the less likely people are to challenge it, or even go back to the start for a complete review.
At the #fundamental layer of maths are simply the concept of numbers & quantity. If you're going to use them other than the way they come, the set is probably the next option.
OTOH, not doing this is also creating #HiddenAssumptions that do pass along to the higher levels. The problem with problems is that we don't always know where they're coming from!
The idea of 'continuous' reality, measured by a continuous number line populated by integers, and then modified by 'infinitely divisible units' between them in order to gain accuracy or change #scale, is the status quo that few ever bother to question.
IMO, the time to do that re-examination is exactly in circumstances like you brought up. Looking only at GR, or only at QM, we might walk away with the impression of their correctness & #universality. But when they cannot be brought to terms with each other, then the next (or at least after a century of tinkering & failing) logical area to question is in the models & structures prior to them (rinse and repeat until resolved).
Our notion of making single, #continuous measurements and being able to determine things like #simultaneity or mass-energy relations has failed in these areas.
The similarity between the theory / #measurement relationship, and between practice / 'live' performance is what I was aiming to highlight.
When not performing, all masters practice /revisit the basics on a regular basis. A good practice session 'lets go' of the conditions of a performance, and vice versa.
-
@science_quotes @jcastroarnaud
I tried to make it general enough that anyone could respond, so no worries there.[Here's a post I just happened to see that talks about the importance of measuring principles, in the context of domestic abuse: https://c.im/@[email protected]e/109523214049642663 ]
The thing I could have emphasized more was the dual nature of the process. When we're stuck in one, the other will suffer.
So 'letting go' cuts both ways. As you point out, often times our models run into problems, and we have to make changes. The disagreement between #experiment and #theory is a big red flag.
The default seems to be to alter the theory in some way. This is not always bad, nor is it always right. The impetus for this is our confidence in the model, fueled by various factors. The farther back the model goes, the less likely people are to challenge it, or even go back to the start for a complete review.
At the #fundamental layer of maths are simply the concept of numbers & quantity. If you're going to use them other than the way they come, the set is probably the next option.
OTOH, not doing this is also creating #HiddenAssumptions that do pass along to the higher levels. The problem with problems is that we don't always know where they're coming from!
The idea of 'continuous' reality, measured by a continuous number line populated by integers, and then modified by 'infinitely divisible units' between them in order to gain accuracy or change #scale, is the status quo that few ever bother to question.
IMO, the time to do that re-examination is exactly in circumstances like you brought up. Looking only at GR, or only at QM, we might walk away with the impression of their correctness & #universality. But when they cannot be brought to terms with each other, then the next (or at least after a century of tinkering & failing) logical area to question is in the models & structures prior to them (rinse and repeat until resolved).
Our notion of making single, #continuous measurements and being able to determine things like #simultaneity or mass-energy relations has failed in these areas.
The similarity between the theory / #measurement relationship, and between practice / 'live' performance is what I was aiming to highlight.
When not performing, all masters practice /revisit the basics on a regular basis. A good practice session 'lets go' of the conditions of a performance, and vice versa.
-
@science_quotes @jcastroarnaud
I tried to make it general enough that anyone could respond, so no worries there.[Here's a post I just happened to see that talks about the importance of measuring principles, in the context of domestic abuse: https://c.im/@[email protected]e/109523214049642663 ]
The thing I could have emphasized more was the dual nature of the process. When we're stuck in one, the other will suffer.
So 'letting go' cuts both ways. As you point out, often times our models run into problems, and we have to make changes. The disagreement between #experiment and #theory is a big red flag.
The default seems to be to alter the theory in some way. This is not always bad, nor is it always right. The impetus for this is our confidence in the model, fueled by various factors. The farther back the model goes, the less likely people are to challenge it, or even go back to the start for a complete review.
At the #fundamental layer of maths are simply the concept of numbers & quantity. If you're going to use them other than the way they come, the set is probably the next option.
OTOH, not doing this is also creating #HiddenAssumptions that do pass along to the higher levels. The problem with problems is that we don't always know where they're coming from!
The idea of 'continuous' reality, measured by a continuous number line populated by integers, and then modified by 'infinitely divisible units' between them in order to gain accuracy or change #scale, is the status quo that few ever bother to question.
IMO, the time to do that re-examination is exactly in circumstances like you brought up. Looking only at GR, or only at QM, we might walk away with the impression of their correctness & #universality. But when they cannot be brought to terms with each other, then the next (or at least after a century of tinkering & failing) logical area to question is in the models & structures prior to them (rinse and repeat until resolved).
Our notion of making single, #continuous measurements and being able to determine things like #simultaneity or mass-energy relations has failed in these areas.
The similarity between the theory / #measurement relationship, and between practice / 'live' performance is what I was aiming to highlight.
When not performing, all masters practice /revisit the basics on a regular basis. A good practice session 'lets go' of the conditions of a performance, and vice versa.
-
@science_quotes @jcastroarnaud
I tried to make it general enough that anyone could respond, so no worries there.[Here's a post I just happened to see that talks about the importance of measuring principles, in the context of domestic abuse: https://c.im/@[email protected]e/109523214049642663 ]
The thing I could have emphasized more was the dual nature of the process. When we're stuck in one, the other will suffer.
So 'letting go' cuts both ways. As you point out, often times our models run into problems, and we have to make changes. The disagreement between #experiment and #theory is a big red flag.
The default seems to be to alter the theory in some way. This is not always bad, nor is it always right. The impetus for this is our confidence in the model, fueled by various factors. The farther back the model goes, the less likely people are to challenge it, or even go back to the start for a complete review.
At the #fundamental layer of maths are simply the concept of numbers & quantity. If you're going to use them other than the way they come, the set is probably the next option.
OTOH, not doing this is also creating #HiddenAssumptions that do pass along to the higher levels. The problem with problems is that we don't always know where they're coming from!
The idea of 'continuous' reality, measured by a continuous number line populated by integers, and then modified by 'infinitely divisible units' between them in order to gain accuracy or change #scale, is the status quo that few ever bother to question.
IMO, the time to do that re-examination is exactly in circumstances like you brought up. Looking only at GR, or only at QM, we might walk away with the impression of their correctness & #universality. But when they cannot be brought to terms with each other, then the next (or at least after a century of tinkering & failing) logical area to question is in the models & structures prior to them (rinse and repeat until resolved).
Our notion of making single, #continuous measurements and being able to determine things like #simultaneity or mass-energy relations has failed in these areas.
The similarity between the theory / #measurement relationship, and between practice / 'live' performance is what I was aiming to highlight.
When not performing, all masters practice /revisit the basics on a regular basis. A good practice session 'lets go' of the conditions of a performance, and vice versa.
-
@science_quotes @jcastroarnaud
I tried to make it general enough that anyone could respond, so no worries there.[Here's a post I just happened to see that talks about the importance of measuring principles, in the context of domestic abuse: https://c.im/@[email protected]e/109523214049642663 ]
The thing I could have emphasized more was the dual nature of the process. When we're stuck in one, the other will suffer.
So 'letting go' cuts both ways. As you point out, often times our models run into problems, and we have to make changes. The disagreement between #experiment and #theory is a big red flag.
The default seems to be to alter the theory in some way. This is not always bad, nor is it always right. The impetus for this is our confidence in the model, fueled by various factors. The farther back the model goes, the less likely people are to challenge it, or even go back to the start for a complete review.
At the #fundamental layer of maths are simply the concept of numbers & quantity. If you're going to use them other than the way they come, the set is probably the next option.
OTOH, not doing this is also creating #HiddenAssumptions that do pass along to the higher levels. The problem with problems is that we don't always know where they're coming from!
The idea of 'continuous' reality, measured by a continuous number line populated by integers, and then modified by 'infinitely divisible units' between them in order to gain accuracy or change #scale, is the status quo that few ever bother to question.
IMO, the time to do that re-examination is exactly in circumstances like you brought up. Looking only at GR, or only at QM, we might walk away with the impression of their correctness & #universality. But when they cannot be brought to terms with each other, then the next (or at least after a century of tinkering & failing) logical area to question is in the models & structures prior to them (rinse and repeat until resolved).
Our notion of making single, #continuous measurements and being able to determine things like #simultaneity or mass-energy relations has failed in these areas.
The similarity between the theory / #measurement relationship, and between practice / 'live' performance is what I was aiming to highlight.
When not performing, all masters practice /revisit the basics on a regular basis. A good practice session 'lets go' of the conditions of a performance, and vice versa.
-
Renato Quagliani #EPFL shows in #CERN #LHC seminar the impressive new #LHCb measurement of of R(K) and R(K∗) with the full Run 1 and 2 data based on lepton #universality
Showing results fully compatible with the #StandardModel
-
無 #mu /# wu
Simplified: 无
Non presence
a race for superiority is never ending. when we run the other way, towards #nothingness, the 無, the wu, we go back to the basics, the zero. at zero, we are one. equality is possible when I am #nothing. this is the principle of #minimalism. a simplification of existence comes from #universality. the radical of 無 is fire. #nondoing is active, not passive. to exist through the subtle is to move out of the gross, into the #intangible.
-
People say they want enlightenment, #nirvana, we speak of universality, so easily. But to seek enlightenment is to seek to hear and see all the world's pain and to hold it with compassion. We stay in ignorance because it is lighter passage there.
-
"[...] as a pedagogic project, I find #Processing actively uninterested in its own underlying materiality, aspiring instead to a kind of disembodied and bland #universality. Students are encouraged to explore the “world at large” by adding additional layers of #technology in the form of sensors, rather than considering all the ways the technologies they use are already engaged with the world. The project’s “neutral” aesthetics, while dimly echoing a once-radical #Bauhaus #aesthetic, ignore the larger pedagogic program of the historical Bauhaus’s engagement and #experimentation with the materials of its contemporary, technical production."
Welcomed critique (finally!) of Processing, #CaseyReas
#JohnMaeda, Design by Numbers (#DBN) with the perspectives given by the vernacular #ImageMagick and #SeymourPapert #LOGO.
"Torn at the seams: #vernacular approaches to #teaching with #computational tools" by #MichaelMurtaugh in the publication "Vernaculars come to #matter, (re)orienting #language and #technology" by #vvvvvvaria @manetta @ccl and #JulieBoschatThorez
https://vltk.vvvvvvaria.org/w/Torn_at_the_seams:_vernacular_approaches_to_teaching_with_computational_tools
#bricolage #pedagogy -
"[...] as a pedagogic project, I find #Processing actively uninterested in its own underlying materiality, aspiring instead to a kind of disembodied and bland #universality. Students are encouraged to explore the “world at large” by adding additional layers of #technology in the form of sensors, rather than considering all the ways the technologies they use are already engaged with the world. The project’s “neutral” aesthetics, while dimly echoing a once-radical #Bauhaus #aesthetic, ignore the larger pedagogic program of the historical Bauhaus’s engagement and #experimentation with the materials of its contemporary, technical production."
Welcomed critique (finally!) of Processing, #CaseyReas
#JohnMaeda, Design by Numbers (#DBN) with the perspectives given by the vernacular #ImageMagick and #SeymourPapert #LOGO.
"Torn at the seams: #vernacular approaches to #teaching with #computational tools" by #MichaelMurtaugh in the publication "Vernaculars come to #matter, (re)orienting #language and #technology" by #vvvvvvaria @manetta @ccl and #JulieBoschatThorez
https://vltk.vvvvvvaria.org/w/Torn_at_the_seams:_vernacular_approaches_to_teaching_with_computational_tools
#bricolage #pedagogy -
"[...] as a pedagogic project, I find #Processing actively uninterested in its own underlying materiality, aspiring instead to a kind of disembodied and bland #universality. Students are encouraged to explore the “world at large” by adding additional layers of #technology in the form of sensors, rather than considering all the ways the technologies they use are already engaged with the world. The project’s “neutral” aesthetics, while dimly echoing a once-radical #Bauhaus #aesthetic, ignore the larger pedagogic program of the historical Bauhaus’s engagement and #experimentation with the materials of its contemporary, technical production."
Welcomed critique (finally!) of Processing, #CaseyReas
#JohnMaeda, Design by Numbers (#DBN) with the perspectives given by the vernacular #ImageMagick and #SeymourPapert #LOGO.
"Torn at the seams: #vernacular approaches to #teaching with #computational tools" by #MichaelMurtaugh in the publication "Vernaculars come to #matter, (re)orienting #language and #technology" by #vvvvvvaria @manetta @ccl and #JulieBoschatThorez
https://vltk.vvvvvvaria.org/w/Torn_at_the_seams:_vernacular_approaches_to_teaching_with_computational_tools
#bricolage #pedagogy -
#universality that should be grounded on the principle of "general welfare" (allgemeine Wohl) by Hegel.
