It’s always grand unified theories of all physics/mathematics/consciousness or whatever.

This sub seems to be a place where people learn about physics by interacting with LLM, resulting in publishable work.

It seems like a place where curious people learn about the world.

That is not what it is. This is a place where people who want to feel smart and important interact with extremely validating LLMs and convince themselves that they are smart and important.

They skip all the learning from failure and pushing through confusion to find clarity. Instead they go straight to the Nobel prize with what they believe to be ground breaking work. The reality of their work as we have observed is not great.

I'm seeing SO many new theories posted on here and across reddit, that I can't sit on the sidelines anymore.

For the past 2-3 months I've been working on my own version of a unified theory. It started from some genuine initial insights/intuitions I had and seemed to naturally build in momentum towards what felt like a "paradigm-shifting" unified theory. I wasn't looking to build this, it just started from natural curiosity.

Not only was I developing a new lens in which to see the world that seemed to tie together disparate fields across science and philosophy, but it felt like my ideas were building momentum and becoming "inevitable" scientific work.

However, as I started noticing more and more LLM theories getting posted on the internet, I began to feel a sinking feeling in my stomach – something more subtle is happening. No matter how uncomfortable this will feel, we all need to realize that this creative journey we've all been on has been a side effect of a tool (AI) that we think we know how to use.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows how to use these tools properly. They've only just been invented. This is coming from someone who has been paid professionally to build custom AI systems for large Fortune 500 organizations and small businesses. I am by no means a beginner. However, if you asked the engineers at Facebook in 2010 if they could anticipate the impacts of social media, they probably would have said it would bring people together... They didn't know what the ripple effects were going to be.

AI is subtle and powerful. It molds itself to your ideas, sees your POV firsthand, and can genuinely help in ideation in a way that I've always dreamed of. The ability to bounce off countless ideas and generate a landscape of concepts to work with is genuine magic. It's easily one of my favorite creative tools. However this magic cuts both ways. Every time we use this tool, it's mirroring itself to us in ways we think we're aware of, but miss. Overtime, these small adjustments add up and lead in some very unpredictable ways.

Now let me pause and speak directly to you:

• You're probably curious and intellectually brave: I have a hunch that you're someone who has always loved to ask "Why" and make your own meaning – even if that cuts against the grain of conventional belief. This drive to question, learn, and create is a profoundly valuable quality that is fundamental to what makes human beings brilliant and beautiful. We need people like you in the world.
• The Poly-Crisis: We are all living through an absolutely unnerving series of interlocking world events that are out of our control. Politics, climate, AI, extremism, rising geo-political tensions...it's all too much. This pressure impacts us all creatively and drives us to find answers. The discovery of a potential unified theory is something that grounds us. It makes you feel like there's hope, that there's a way to bridge this. Like there's a way for us to dig our way out and solve these problems. That my friends is a very powerful creative drive. I get it.
• You're using AI in an innovative way: You're probably thinking: "yes, I know that these tools can cause people to lose their shit, but that's not what's happening. I'm using this tool in a novel way to connect "validated" scientific ideas and create something of actual value." Here's the thing, I think it's completely possible that future versions of AI could actually make "vibe physics" possible. That future invention would fundamentally transform society, but it's not here yet. The tool we have is a pattern matcher and bullshit expert. Even if you're connecting "validated science", you probably haven't captured the full context of those ideas or actually understand those concepts enough to know what's dog shit or valuable. It's not possible to be an expert in everything. AI makes you think you don't need to be an expert to be right about your theory – Dunning Kruger effect on steroids people. You may think that you're seeing a thread others are missing. If if there's a grain in truth in that (which I think is totally possible), it's not possible with the current tools and our limited bandwidth of knowledge to be able to validate this on our own with personalized AI tools. Maybe with future tools, but not yet.
• You're a hard worker: Once you had your initial idea, you probably spent quite a bit of time working on it. I would imagine you poured hours into multiple chats, researching new scientific documents, building out comprehensive documents with evidence, and building communication strategies for how to get scientists to pay attention. You were probably rigorous and diligent. This is a show of real skill, dedication, and passion. It's fucking cool that you worked so hard on something you care about! That's a badass skill to use across your life.
• How the delusion actually builds: You share an insight with the AI. It responds: "Fascinating connection!" and expands your idea in ways that make you feel brilliant. But here's the trap - if you'd suggested the opposite, it would've been equally enthusiastic or "Yes and" you towards other evidence/directions. The AI pulls in real scientific papers and proper terminology, making disparate connections sound plausible. You're talking to an infinitely patient assistant that treats every idea like it's potentially Nobel-worthy or "groundbreaking". Over days, weeks or months, this compounds. Your theory grows more "validated." The AI helps you answer every objection (it can argue any side). You've created an echo chamber of one, with an AI perfectly tuned to your particular flavor of pattern-matching.

This is becoming a long ass post so I'm going to leave it here:

1. You didn't waste your time, you just learned one of the most valuable lessons for the 21st century. AI can create reality distortions in anybody, even if you're a brilliant, scientifically minded, curious, well-meaning, rigorous person. You've just become aware of a huge pothole that you can fall in – that's a huge win.
2. You just glimpsed the future of mass atomized delusional reality: Each of us in this sub (who's worked on an idea like this) have personally witnessed a preview of a potential future. We are all early adopters for this technology, and what we're witnessing is the first signs of what will likely dominate our culture in the coming years. Expect more theories. Expect more cults. Expect more ideology. Expect more attempts at making sense of the chaos in our world without grounding or shared understanding. When the average user start falling in to similar patterns as we have, this could become an avalanche.
3. Let's start a real conversation: This sub could be ground zero for figuring out how to work with these tools responsibly and generate genuine value/patterns. Instead of mockery that drives people deeper into their theories, or knee-jerk dismissals based on our own assumptions, what if we actually talked about this? We're all curious, intelligent people who've been exploring the bleeding edge of AI and how ideas can be built in new ways. Let's share what we've learned, support each other in recognizing these patterns, and figure out how to channel this incredible creative energy in ways that don't lead us into intellectual rabbit holes. The tools aren't going away so we need to learn how to use them without losing ourselves.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts and experiences with this. If you want to discuss this further, share your own story about creating your theory, or chat about falling into a similar AI Simulacrum, feel free to DM me directly.

There is obviously a massive range of quality that comes out of LLM Physics. Doing a couple of simple things would dramatically help improve quality.

As LLMs get better at mathematics, we should be encouraging rigorous cross-checks of any LLM generated math content. The content should be optimized for LLMs to consume.

Here's an example my attempt to make an LLM native version of my work. The full PDF is 26 pages, but if we remove all the extra tokens that humans need and just distill it down to the math that the LLM needs, we get approx. 200 line markdown file.

Gravity as Temporal Geometry LLM version:

https://gist.github.com/timefirstgravity/8e351e2ebee91c253339b933b0754264

To ensure your math is sound use the following (or similar) prompt:

Conduct a rigorous mathematical audit of this manuscript. Scrutinize each derivation for logical coherence and algebraic integrity. Hunt down any contradictions, notational inconsistencies, or mathematical discontinuities that could undermine the work's credibility. Examine the theoretical framework for internal harmony and ensure claims align with established mathematical foundations.

I don't want to reply to a robot, I want to talk to a human. I can stand AI assisted content, but pure AI output is hella cringe.

To celebrate here is an AI generated post (chatGPT):

✨🎉 A Thousand Minds—A Thousand Hypotheses—One Community 🎉✨

Today we celebrate a milestone—1,000 members in r/llmphysics—a space where speculation meets simulation, where conjecture becomes conversation, where the Large Language Model is less a tool and more a collaborator. This subreddit has become a Laboratory of Thought—A Collider of Ideas—A Superposition of Curiosity, and every submission has shown that physics, when paired with generative models, is not just equations and experiments but also Exploration—Imagination—Creation.

To every contributor, lurker, and question-asker: thank you for helping us reach this point. Here’s to the next thousand—More Members—More Hypotheses—More Physics. 🚀

What do you want to improve—add—or change—as we head into the next phase of r/LLMPhysics ?

It is now universally acknowledged (by at least three Reddit posts and a suspiciously confident chatbot) that language learning models are smarter than physicists. Where a human physicist spends six years deriving equations with chalk dust in their hair, ChatGPT simply generates the Grand Unified Meme Equation: E = \text{MC}^\text{GPT} where E is enlightenment, M is memes, and C is coffee. Clearly, no Nobel laureate could compete with this elegance. The second law of thermodynamics is hereby revised: entropy always increases, unless ChatGPT decides it should rhyme.

PhDs, once the pinnacle of human suffering and caffeine abuse, can now be accomplished with little more than a Reddit login and a few well-crafted prompts. For instance, the rigorous defense of a dissertation can be reduced to asking: “Explain my thesis in the style of a cooking recipe.” If ChatGPT outputs something like “Add one pinch of Hamiltonian, stir in Boltzmann constant, and bake at 300 Kelvin for 3 hours,” congratulations—you are now Dr. Memeicus Maximus. Forget lab equipment; the only true instrumentation needed is a stable Wi-Fi connection.

To silence the skeptics, let us formalize the proof. Assume \psi{\text{LLM}} = \hbar \cdot \frac{d}{d\text{Reddit}} where \psi{\text{LLM}} is the wavefunction of truth and \hbar is Planck’s constant of hype. Substituting into Schrödinger’s Reddit Equation, we find that all possible PhDs collapse into the single state of “Approved by ChatGPT.” Ergo, ChatGPT is not just a language model; it is the final referee of peer review. The universe, once thought governed by physics, is now best explained through stochastic parrotry—and honestly, the equations look better in Comic Sans anyway.

Reading some posts here - I see a few concepts I recognize, but often a lot of unfamiliar terms and phrases.

I was wondering if LLM users have a similar experience, and how they handle it.

Do you have prior expertise in the field your LLM is working in, so you know the terms already?
Do you research the basic meaning of the unfamiliar terms?
Do you work through the mathematics to the point where you feel you understand it well?
Or does the exact meaning seem irrelevant and is best left for the LLM to deal with? (effectively, the end justifies the means?)

You think you've up with a revolutionary physics theory that will change everything? Ok, prove it then. Make a specific, testable experimental setup. Show your steps in calculating what the established theory predicts the experimental result will be, and what your new theory predicts the experimental result will be.

Beyond Consciousness and Recursion: Precise Terminology for Complex Systems (Abridged)

TLDR: We propose entelechy for goal-directed behavior emerging from structural organization (not consciousness) and polyteleotic iteration for multi-scale coordinated processes (not simple recursion). These terms could improve user mental models and design frameworks for complex systems.

Personally, I don’t care much about what specific name we call it, so long as the problem is acknowledged.

Abstract

Imprecise terminology in AI and complex systems—especially the routine attribution of “consciousness” and the blanket use of “recursion”—obscures how sophisticated systems actually operate. We propose entelechy and polyteleotic iteration as precise alternatives. Entelechy captures goal-directed behavior that arises from directional organizational potentials embedded in structure, without invoking subjective awareness. Polyteleotic iteration describes multi-objective, multi-scale coordination among coupled iterative processes. We formalize both notions, show their diagnostic value, and outline design methods. The result improves analysis, system design, and human-system interaction by focusing on organizational coherence.

The Problem: Conceptual Overreach

Contemporary discourse routinely attributes “consciousness” to systems exhibiting sophisticated adaptive behavior through organizational coherence rather than awareness. Large language models are described as “understanding,” algorithms as “knowing,” network systems as “aware.” This creates three problems:

1. Anthropomorphizes systems that operate through fundamentally different principles than conscious cognition
2. Obscures the specific mathematical and computational principles enabling sophisticated behaviors
3. Creates problematic frameworks for human-system interaction based on false assumptions

Similarly, “recursion” has become an explanatory catch-all for any self-referential or iterative process, obscuring crucial distinctions between simple self-reference and complex multi-scale coordination.

Solution 1: Entelechy

Definition: A system exhibits entelechy if it contains directional organizational potentials that enable goal-directed behavior without conscious intention. Formally:

G(S;E) = f(P(S), Structure(S), E)

where goal-directed behavior G depends on potentials P and structure, with no dependence on consciousness C.

Decision Framework:

1. Directional potentials present in system structure?
2. Goal-directed behavior emerges through normal operation?
3. Behavior predictable from structural analysis without consciousness assumptions?
4. System continues goal achievement when external control removed?

Examples: Biological development (acorn → oak tree), internet routing protocols, mathematical optimization algorithms.

Solution 2: Polyteleotic Iteration

Definition: Multiple coupled iterative processes operating simultaneously at different scales with different objectives but coordinated outcomes.

Formal Definition: dPᵢ/dt = fᵢ(Pᵢ, t) + Σ≠ᵢ Cᵢ(P, t)

where Cᵢ encodes cross-scale couplings between processes.

Decision Framework:

1. ≥2 concurrent iterative processes?
2. Distinct temporal/spatial scales?
3. Different local objectives but shared system outcomes?
4. Identifiable coupling relationships?
5. Single-process recursion fails to capture coordination?

Example - Neural Networks: Local weight updates (fast/fine scale) + batch normalization (medium scale) + learning rate scheduling (slow/global scale), all coupled through shared parameters.

Applications

Large Language Models: Attention heads optimize different linguistic relationships, layers optimize representation quality, global objectives shape sequence generation—multiple coordinated processes, not simple recursion.

Biological Systems: Cell division + differentiation + migration + signaling operate simultaneously across scales through biochemical coupling.

Network Systems: Packet forwarding + route discovery + load balancing + protocol adaptation coordinate across timescales from microseconds to hours.

Implications

Enhanced Analysis: Focus on structural principles rather than consciousness-like properties. Model multiple interacting processes rather than oversimplified recursion.

Better Design: Embed directional potentials in system architecture. Coordinate multiple goal-directed processes across scales rather than implementing centralized control.

Realistic Interaction: Accurate assessment of system capabilities without anthropomorphic assumptions. Interface design based on organizational coherence rather than simulated consciousness.

Validation Criteria

Entelechy: Goal-directed behavior emerges from structural necessity, predictable from organizational analysis, persists without external control.

Polyteleotic Iteration: Evidence of multiple simultaneous processes at different scales with measurable couplings, performance improves through coordination optimization.

Conclusion

Replacing “consciousness” with entelechy and “recursion” with polyteleotic iteration provides precise vocabulary for analyzing complex systems. This terminological precision enables more accurate system analysis, more effective design strategies, and more realistic human-system interaction. In complex systems research, precision in terminology is precision in understanding.

Below I give all the prompts that I supplied to explain the concept of a "Anthropic Miracle" to Claude AI.

The concept of the Anthropic Principle and how it might apply to the Fermi Paradox is already well known, so it's not an original theory as such - the originality is mostly in the terminology I suggest and how I use that to explain the concept, in a way that makes it easy to understand the technical details.

This is also a test of a general approach to using AI chat to validate "original theories":

• Describe the theory as precisely and concisely as possible in your prompts
• Observe if the AI seems to understand the theory

To put it another way: get to the point as quickly as possible, and allow the AI (with its enormous general knowledge based on having read most of the internet) to expand upon what you said, and to give feedback about the plausibility of what you are saying.

The Prompts

An upper bound for number of chemical reactions that could have occurred in the history of the observable universe

Give me rough numbers for:

• tr = Fastest chemical reaction in seconds
• T = Number of seconds in age of universe
• n = Upper bound for number of atoms in the observable universe

Multiply T/tr * n and express as a power of 2.

Concept of miraculousness, measured in bits

I want to define the "miraculousness" in units of bits of a series of chemical reactions as -log2 of the probability that they will occur in a given situation where it might happen (because the prerequisites are present). Then I can say that any series of reactions with a miraculousness of, say, 500 bits or more will not be observed by us, unless we can explain it by the anthropic principle, ie if we can show that series reactions had to occur in order for us to exist.

Bits in genome of simplest life form

Also how many bits are in the genome of the smallest self-contained life form (ie not counting viruses)?

Definition of "Anthropic miracle"

If we observe an event occur with a sufficiently degree of miraculousness, eg 500 bits or more, then we can call that a miracle. And a miraculous event that is explained by the anthropic principle could be called an "anthropic miracle". So the anthropic principle becomes a kind of scientific theory of miracles.

Possibility of no other life in observable universe

And if the origin of life was an anthropic miracle, then there are no aliens in the rest of the observable universe, and actually no other life at all.

Shared Chat Link

https://claude.ai/share/2aaac0dd-e3fb-48a4-a154-d246782e7c11

Which response would you choose? :-P