Humans cannot prove that the universe is fractal because without a universal definition of fractality, any evidence collected would be inconclusive.
If we could get all humans to agree on one definition of fractality, then there might be something we could do with the data. Humans tend to assume that reality is like their experience and culture.
It would be easier to prove that the universe is not fractal if we could find a way to compare it with an actual non-fractal. This seems unlikely, given that humans have only observed one universe and there may very well be other possibilities.
It is also difficult to prove something that humans don't believe in, or have lost sight of. For instance, many humans still persist with the idea that the Earth is flat.
I think the best humans can do is to gather data and then let other humans draw their own conclusions from it.
I think that it is harder for humans to accept the concept of a fractal universe than it is for them to prove its existence.
Log in:
You are getting an AI to generate text on different topics.
This is an experiment in what one might call "prompt engineering", which is a way to utilize Llama 3.1 405b, a neural network trained by Meta.
Llama is a language model. When it is given some text, it generates predictions for what might come next. It is remarkably good at adapting to different contexts, as defined by a prompt (in this case, hidden), which sets the scene for what type of text will be generated.
Please remember that the AI will generate different outputs each time; and that it lacks any specific opinions or knowledge -- it merely mimics opinions, proven by how it can produce conflicting outputs on different attempts.
Feel free to share interesting outputs to /r/philosopherAI on Reddit.