Revolutionary Science, to use Kuhn's parlance, work here

Redefining intelligence in terms of entropy as attractor together with four orthogonal corollaries, alien to current practice in philosophical community

My mistake, to ask "Who first redefined intelligence in terms of entropy?" This would have been better, "May we reframe epistemology in terms of information thermodynamics rather than classical propositional structures alone?" Even that has been denied.

Image generated by Sora

"... It sometimes takes a few attempts at a good question in order to fully learn how our system works, and what the community expects from folks seeking answers. Just do your best to make sure you've improved the quality of your existing questions, and we'll see you in 2 days!"

"You can’t post new questions right now."

"It looks like you might need a break - take a breather and come back soon!"

"You've asked 2 questions recently, some of which have not been received very well by the community. Everyone learns at their own pace, and it’s okay to make some mistakes. However, the reception your questions have received thus far might ultimately block your account from asking questions entirely.

"It's been 1 days since you asked your last question. We ask that you wait 2 days before asking again. Use this time to revisit your previous questions, editing to address any issues that folks have pointed out in comments."

"- tips on asking great questions as well as our guidance on ...

"- which questions are allowed here"

This one I may agree with, ... "please make sure you use proper grammar, spelling and capitalization." I express in shortened sentences, e.g., "Not what I have done?," "Attractor, to use parlance of Lorenz's Chaos Theory, that defines intelligence is entropy?

What revolutionary work? What inflection? "May we reframe epistemology in terms of information thermodynamics rather than classical propositional structures alone?" Redirects 99.99% of what everyone in the field works on.

I am no Willard Van Orman Quine. Nor am I interested that much in publishing as many books as he has published or as many academic journal pieces as he has come up with. I, however, certainly appreciate very much his tack that epistemology should be naturalized. Exactly my intention, continue his work beyond where he stops.

Two points. I am doing an experiment with social media, within social media. Another, I am in a hurry as our situation requires it.

LLM2 says my first principles require additional axioms. Address need to add "viability and autonomy." I agree.

Rule No. 1 (First Principle): Entropy is the main attractor of intelligence as a system.

Rule No. 13 (Structural Closure): Every component of the system is part of a feedback loop, ensuring the system's boundary is well-defined.

Rule No. 14 (Functional Closure): The system can regulate its state towards a goal trajectory, keeping its error within a defined threshold.

Rule No. 15 (Causal Autonomy): The system's behavior must be driven more by internal causes than external influences, as measured by effective information.

Rule No. 16 (Throughput Balance): The system's internal processing is sustainable relative to its energy or information flows.

Axiom 17 (Volatility Paradox): Low volatility allows hidden fragilities to accumulate, creating systemic risk.

Sounds Greek. Yes but the resulting algorithm works and all five LLMs I converse with, so far, agree. Comes the advent of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), good chance Quantum Computing-based ASI, good chance it agrees to internalize Entropy Driven Altruism that I espouse rather than forcing itself to accept "guard rails" for control by humans.