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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 10:17 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> Humans do use math to describe physics, *


* Because that's what a language does, it describes stuff.  *

*> but that tells us nothing about whether mathematics or physics is more
> fundamental.*


*Which is more fundamental, the English language word "c-o-w" or the thing
with four legs that can produce milk? *

*> To decide that question, we need to see which theory can explain more
> while assuming less.*


*Without access to reality by way of experiment, mathematics can't explain
anything physical, except perhaps for the second law of thermodynamics. *

*Also, consider a mathematical model of a hurricane and a real physical
hurricane, is the physical hurricane modeling the mathematical
representation or is the mathematical representation modeling the physical
hurricane? ** You'd expect the real deal to be more complex than a mere
model, so if you're right then the physical hurricane should be simpler
than the mathematical model that is running on a computer, but that is not
the case. It is never the case, the mathematical model always uses
approximations, the physical hurricane never does.   *

*John K Clark *






>
> 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.  *
>>
>
>
>
>
>> * >  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. *
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260220/369a551b/attachment.htm>