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

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 8:35 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:12 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *> I don't deny that mathematical concepts exist in our heads. But my
>> question is about the infinite numbers which can't exist in our heads, but
>> which must exist for our concepts to make any sense at all.*
>
>
> *Even large finite numbers can't exist in our heads. Computers have
> calculated 105 trillion digits of π, but if you want to calculate the
> circumference of the observable universe from its radius to the greatest
> accuracy that physically makes sense, the Planck length, you'd only need
> the first 62 digits. So I think the 63rd digit has less reality than the
> 62nd, and the 105 trillionth even less.*
>
> *> We could also say that physical laws depend on or are downstream of
>> higher mathematical laws. So if physics laws can be said to exist, then in
>> the same sense these mathematical laws (i.e. rules) can also be said to
>> exist.*
>
>
> *I believe it is probable that mathematics is the language of physics but
> is a language nevertheless, if that is true then you've got it backwards,
> physics is more fundamental than mathematics. The English word "cow" cannot
> produce milk and it exists only within the mind of a human, but the thing
> that can produce milk exists within the human mind and outside of it too.  *
>


You are confused by the circularity of this triangle:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510188

Humans do use math to describe physics, but that tells us nothing about
whether mathematics or physics is more fundamental.

To decide that question, we need to see which theory can explain more while
assuming less. I see you chose to delete and not engage with the part of my
email that showed assuming math is more fundamental can explain more while
assuming less. Until you do, you'll never understand the explanatory
benefits of supposing math is more fundamental.

Jason


> * >  To advocate a bit for Platonism, I am wondering how you would class
>> the existence of mathematical truths and objects.*
>>
>
> *If Jane, Susan and John find 9 cupcakes and they decide to divide them up
> equally  among themselves, how many cupcakes does each person get? The
> answer to this word puzzle is 3, it is a mathematical truth, however none
> of those 9 cupcakes are physically real. Mathematics is capable of
> generating puzzles of arbitrary difficulty and complexity, however that
> doesn't necessarily mean they have any reality outside of the mind that is
> attempting to solve the puzzle.  *
>
> *>  when one of our useful mathematical theories says it is true that
>> "$1000 - $995 = $5" also tells us that 9 is non-prime because an integer
>> factor of 9*
>
>
> *Here is another word puzzle, Jane, Susan and John decide to arrange those
> 9 cupcakes into a square (or a rectangle), would that be physically
> possible? The answer is yes. Here is yet another word puzzle Jane, Susan
> and John decide to arrange 11 cupcakes into a square (or a rectangle),
> would that be physically possible? The answer is no. But none of these word
> puzzles has any bearing on the existence of cupcakes, we could've just as
> easily been talking about unicorns instead of cupcakes. *
>
>
>> *> It is no different from the physicists who takes general relativity
>> serious and who concludes, based on the measured curvature of the universe,
>> that there exist regions space far beyond the cosmological horizon. They
>> are so far away that we will never be able to see them. But these regions
>> must exist if our theory of GR is true.*
>>
>
> *That is a perfectly logical argument, and that's why I think those who
> say that the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not science
> because we could never see those other worlds is invalid. I think those
> other worlds must exist if quantum mechanics is true. Probably.   *
>
> *> "A 53rd Mersenne prime exists." Is such a statement true?*
>
>
> *I don't know but I do know that the existence or non-existence of a 53rd
> Mersenne prime makes a difference only within the mind attempting to find
> it or attempting to prove it doesn't exist. The planets will continue on
> with their orbits unchanged regardless of what the answer to that word
> puzzle turns out to be. *
>
> *John K Clark*
>
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260220/f8883a3c/attachment-0001.htm>