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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 4:16 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*>> 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*
>

*And I see you have not answered my question.  *

*> by the circularity inherent to the triangle.I suggest taking a look at
> the paper I linked.*
>


*I already had and I was not impressed by Penrose’s triangle. Mind is just
what the brain, which needs to be made of matter to work, does. And
chimpanzees, which are  made of matter, can produce mind, but they do not
have math. And the rest of the paper was equally unimpressive, which wasn't
surprising because the 3 authors (none of whom is Roger
Penrose) admit right at the start that they don't agree even among
themselves and "hold three divergent views".*


*>> 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?*
>


*I only have answers to 3 of those questions.  Occam's razor is simply a
matter of economy, we don't have access to infinite computing capacity
therefore it is wise to look for the least complex way you can to find an
answer to a puzzle, and as a result of that fundamental laws tend to be
simple. And if there are any physical laws that are not computable then we
wouldn't be able to find them, therefore any laws that we do find are going
to be computable. *

*As for the other questions on your list, forget about finding the answers,
without access to physical reality you wouldn't even know what questions to
ask. The most profound question of all is not on your list, it is "**Why is
there something rather than nothing?**", but if you didn't have access to
physical reality you wouldn't even know there was something that needed
explaining. *

* John K Clark*













>
>> *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.   *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> *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/20260221/57211867/attachment.htm>