News Peer review

iOS autocomplete nearly addresses physics conference

Spread the love
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

But rivals feared the system would hog the stage?

From Elle Hunt at Guardian:

A nonsensical academic paper on nuclear physics written only by iOS autocomplete has been accepted for a scientific conference.

Christoph Bartneck, an associate professor at the Human Interface Technology laboratory at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, received an email inviting him to submit a paper to the International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics in the US in November.

“Since I have practically no knowledge of nuclear physics I resorted to iOS autocomplete function to help me writing the paper,” he wrote in a blog post on Thursday. “I started a sentence with ‘atomic’ or ‘nuclear’ and then randomly hit the autocomplete suggestions.

“The text really does not make any sense.” More.

This is pretty much an old type of news now, ever since the first famous Sokal hoax in 1996. What’s not good news is that nothing much has changed in 20 years. Maybe no one wants to grapple with how little it matters any more in many fields.

See also: Another hoax journal article retracted


Physicist admits hypocrisy about journal failings

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “iOS autocomplete nearly addresses physics conference

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Although most of the abstract is incomprehensible gibberish, this particular sentence from the abstract almost made a little bit of sense given materialistic premises of amorality.

    “The atoms of a better universe will have the right for the same as you,,”

    i.e. Given materialistic amorality, who are we mere humans to argue that we have any more moral right in a ‘better universe’ than the atoms do? In fact, since ‘the atoms’ in the Atheist’s materialistic worldview are given virtually unlimited god-like power to create, (and humans are denied any real intelligence or consciousness to create), then the atoms would actually have more ‘moral’ rights than we do in a ‘better universe’.

    Atheism and the remarkable faith of the atomist – by Dave Armstrong • May 12, 2016
    Excerpt: The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter — arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that “god-matter” does using science alone.
    Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite ironic, then, to hear the constant charge that we Christians have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible faith, as opposed to the self-described “rational, intellectual and sophisticated” atheist.
    In reality, atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort. The ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine, defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, believes trillions of “atom-gods” and their distant relatives, the “cell-gods,” make everything in the universe occur by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.
    One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is god”). To the atomist, trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The atomist openly and unreservedly worships these trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

    If you think the author of the preceding paper is vastly overstating the situation with Atheistic Materialists then just look at the unlimited power that ‘the atoms’ are given by Atheists in their materialistic “Many Worlds Interpretation” (MWI) of quantum mechanics:

    “The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse.”
    per wikipedia

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,

    i.e. In Many Worlds, i.e. in the Atheistic Materialist denying the reality of wave function collapse, Many Worlds truly exposes materialism in all its full blown absurdity. i.e. The material particle is given so much unmerited and unlimited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone simply observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes.
    Of course, as with practically all other claims from Atheists, their claim that wave function collapse is not real is the materialistic claim that turns out to be false when examined in detail.
    Specifically, contrary to MWI of materialists, the following experiment shows that the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”

    Here is an excellent video that highlights many other inherent fallacies within the MWI of materialists:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video

    As well here are a couple of videos highlighting the fact that the Christian Theist is more than justified in his claim that God causes the wave function to collapse:

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video

    An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment and Detector is only placed at one slit during the double slit yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) – video – May 2016

    As well, the computer generated abstract highlights another absurd belief within Atheistic Materialism. Many atheists hold that computers will be conscious someday. In fact, I recently heard one academic, who is a materialist, respond in a ‘Closer to Truth’ video interview, “Who are we to say that computers are not conscious right now?”, when he was asked whether he believed computers will be conscious someday.
    Well, contrary to his childlike faith in materialism, and as the incomprehensible gibberish from the computer generated abstract in the OP itself points out, it is the computers themselves that are telling us that they have no clue what they are talking about. i.e. Testifying to the fact that they are not really consciously aware of what they are doing.
    The reason why we know for a fact that computers have no clue what they are talking about is because of ‘context’. In the abstract, we humans, who are consciously aware of what might rightly be called ‘the big picture’, can very quickly discern that there is no overriding line of thought, no overarching ‘context’, that is being adhered to and further developed in the computer generated abstract.
    As the abstract itself makes clear, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has no true comprehension of human language.
    Will Knight, who is senior editor for AI and robotics at MIT ­Technology Review, puts the insurmountable problem that human language places on the AI of computers like this

    AI’s Language Problem
    Machines that truly understand language would be incredibly useful. But we don’t know how to build them. – by Will Knight – August 9, 2016
    Excerpt: Systems like Siri and IBM’s Watson can follow simple spoken or typed commands and answer basic questions, but they can’t hold a conversation and have no real understanding of the words they use.,,,
    “There’s no way you can have an AI system that’s humanlike that doesn’t have language at the heart of it,” ,,,
    “It’s one of the most obvious things that set human intelligence apart.”,,,
    Basically, Le’s program has no idea what it’s talking about. It understands that certain combinations of symbols go together, but it has no appreciation of the real world. It doesn’t know what a centipede actually looks like, or how it moves. It is still just an illusion of intelligence, without the kind of common sense that humans take for granted.,,,
    Cognitive scientists like MIT’s Tenenbaum theorize that important components of the mind are missing from today’s neural networks, no matter how large those networks might be.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    The insurmountable problem of that ‘context of language’ places on AI is made clear by ‘Google Translate’:

    What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data – Erik J. Larson – May 6, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, “Understanding Natural Language,” about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland’s article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required “holistic interpretation.” That is, the ambiguities weren’t resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren’t enough.
    Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal “test” to see if his claims were still valid today.,,,
    ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland’s point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014.
    Erik J. Larson – Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas

    Moreover, the fallacious belief that human intelligence is nothing but massive amounts of computational ability has been with us since Alan Turing invented computers.

    Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.”
    Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.)
    “My claim’s neat and clean.
    I’m a Turing Machine!”
    … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it.

    Yet ironically, Alan Turing, (in his demonstration that Godel’s incompleteness theorem also applied to computers, and not only to mathematics, i.e. the infamous ‘halting problem’), was himself instrumental in directly falsifying the belief that human intelligence could ever be programmed into computers. You can pick a bit of that history up in the later part of the following video:

    Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics – video (excerpted from BBC’s ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ documentary)

    As to the implications of his incompleteness theorem as it is applied to computers, Godel himself ended up stating this:

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13

    Godel’s incompleteness theorem, besides forever putting an end to the belief that computers will be conscious someday, also gives us a penetrating insight into the insurmountable problem that ‘context’ places on ANY materialistic explanations for anything within science, not just the insurmountable problem that ‘context’ places on the Artificial Intelligence of computers.
    Godel’s incompleteness theorem has been stated succinctly as such: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

    Kurt Gödel went on to state this

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

    Around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video, although not commenting on Godel’s incompleteness theorem directly. Pastor Joe Boot comments on the self-defeating nature of the atheistic/materialistic worldview in regards to ever providing an overarching ‘design plan’, i.e. a ‘proper context’, to any problem in science materialists might try to solve within science.

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – Defending the Christian Faith – video

    That materialism cannot ever provide a explanation for the proper ‘context’ for the universe is made evident by the failure of inflation theory.

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous (i.e. why the universe is ’round’).,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”

    As to inflation’s, i.e. materialism’s, abject failure to provide the proper context for the homogeneity, i.e. the ’roundness’, of the universe, the bible predicted the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) thousands of years before it was discovered:

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe compared to the CMBR at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)

    The same goes for the failure of materialism, i.e. inflation, to provide the proper context for the flatness of the universe. The bible also predicted that the universe is ‘flat’ thousands of years before it was discovered.

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    The abject failure of materialism to ever be able to provide a proper ‘context’ is also made evident by the human body.
    To parrot Godel, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself” even applies to the human body. That is to say, for the human body to be considered a unified whole “it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.”
    In fact one of the greatest unanswered questions in molecular biology for us personally is “the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
    Stephen L. Talbott puts that unanswered question for materialistic explanations like this:

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.

    And due to the advance of science, particularly advances within quantum biology, there is now scientific evidence for a transcendent component to our being. Namely, there is now physical evidence strongly indicating that our bodies do indeed contain a single ‘unifying soul’.

    Here are a few notes to that effect:

    Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott’s question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016

    Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Christianity even gives us the ‘proper context’ so as to be able to find the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram

    That Christianity should provide an empirically backed solution to the much sought out “Theory of Everything”, i.e. a primary, overarching, reason for why the universe exists in the first place, should not really be all that surprising since, number 1, modern science was born out of the Christian worldview,

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
    It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.
    Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity!

    and, number 2, the belief that there should even be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a mathematical theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born solely out of Theistic presuppositions (S. Fuller),

    A Mathematical theory of everything simply does not follow from the math but is solely a Theistic presupposition

    and, number 3, Christianity ‘predicts’ that “in him all things were created”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Thus in conclusion, in just that ‘little bitty’ problem of providing a proper context for any given situation in science, the entire materialistic worldview ends up falling completely apart. In other words, ‘unified wholes’ are simply forever beyond the explanatory reach any material particulars that an Atheist may try to appeal to:

    The Waning of Materialism Edited by Robert C. Koons and George Bealer
    Description: Twenty-three philosophers examine the doctrine of materialism and find it wanting. The case against materialism comprises arguments from conscious experience, from the unity and identity of the person, from intentionality, mental causation, and knowledge. The contributors include leaders in the fields of philosophy of mind, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, who respond ably to the most recent versions and defenses of materialism. The modal arguments of Kripke and Chalmers, Jackson’s knowledge argument, Kim’s exclusion problem, and Burge’s anti-individualism all play a part in the building of a powerful cumulative case against the materialist research program. Several papers address the implications of contemporary brain and cognitive research (the psychophysics of color perception, blindsight, and the effects of commissurotomies), adding a posteriori arguments to the classical a priori critique of reductionism. All of the current versions of materialism–reductive and non-reductive, functionalist, eliminativist, and new wave materialism–come under sustained and trenchant attack.

Leave a Reply