[ExI] Why do the language model and the vision model align?

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026, 7:13 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 5:03 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *> When Godel (through his theorems) realized that mathematical truths
>> cannot be a human invention (since mathematical truth transcends any human
>> created axiomatic system), he came to the conclusion that objects in
>> mathematics must have some kind of objective or Platonic existence, as they
>> could not be our own creations.*
>
>
Here is the source I am basing my statement on:

"[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems
to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for the
creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they
can’t have any others except those he has given to them. So this
alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least
something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts
and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of
Platonism or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."

Kurt Gödel in “Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and
their implications p. 311″ (1951)
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/Godel-Basic-Theorems-and-Their-Implications-1.pdf




> *Godel discovered that truth is a bigger category than provability, but he
> didn't think that meant some things were unknowable because he didn't
> believe the human mind was trapped in just one single logical system, he
> thought we could jump out of one system and climb onto an infinite ladder
> of more comprehensive systems.*
>

Yeah we proceed in developing mathematical theories just as we develop
physical theories (empirically).

* The trouble is no logical system powerful enough to perform arithmetic
> can prove its own consistency; so if we keep climbing that infinite ladder
> as Godel suggested then there will come a time when we "prove" something
> and thus be absolutely positively 100% certain it is true, and still be
> dead wrong.*
>

Just as when we use a false physical theory to make a prediction, it will
be wrong.

But noticing something is wrong gives us the impetus to look for a better
theory, just as the collapse of early set theories launched Hilbert's
program, and the development of ZFC. (Which may still be wrong, and even if
not, it will be incomplete, but no one has found a fetal flaw yet).

*  And according to the "principle of explosion"  if a logical system
> contains just one single contradiction then you can prove anything, you can
> prove that both X and not X are true, and thus the entire system becomes
> useless.*
>

Right.

Jason


>
> * John K Clark*
>
>
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260219/96e7a1ad/attachment.htm>