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

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 3:23 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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? *
>

I see you remain confused by the circularity inherent to the triangle. I
suggest taking a look at the paper I linked.



>
>
> *> 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. *
>

It can also explain:

   - Why there is an ontology of parallel states (e.g. many-worlds)
   - Why the universe follows the Schrödinger equation
   - The linearity of quantum mechanics
   - Why Occam's razor works so reliably
   - Why the universe has a beginning (a time which we can't retrodict to
   earlier states)
   - Why the universe has time
   - Why physical laws are simple
   - Why physical laws, can at best, only offer probabilistic predictions
   - Why laws are computable
   - Why there is general relativity

What theory in physics are you aware of that can explain these facts?

Jason



>
> *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/aafa1645/attachment.htm>