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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> Are you familiar with the block universe view that emerges from
> Einstein's relativity?*
>

*Of course, but the standard block universe view doesn't take quantum
mechanics into consideration, so if you believe in Copenhagen it's just
wrong. Many Worlds can save it but then it isn't a 4D block, it's a block
of an astronomical number of dimensions and possibly an infinite number of
dimensions, but that view is so complicated it is not very useful.  *

*> Change is possible in mathematical objects, or universes, or
> computational functions, but change is always in respect to something.*
>

*Yes, and we call that "something" a " Physical Object".*


> * > Think of a plot of a graph of y=f(x) on an X-Y coordinate plane. The
> entire graph is static, and yet, we can say that f(x) changes with respect
> to x.*
>

*But "x" could represent everything or it might represent nothing, there is
no way to tell. And both the symbols x and f(x) never change, they just sit
there in a book. Neither symbol can add 2+2, and the symbol "cow" cannot
produce milk. *


> *> we can say the state of the memory of the Turing machine changes in
> respect to the number of steps the Turing machine has performed.*
>

*Yes but a Turing Machine can be a real physical object and not just an
abstraction described in a book. *

*> But to use your own objection "a law can't do anything"*
>

*They can if the law refers to things that can change, such as position
speed and entropy.  *

*>> Apparently Mueller is as silly as Marchal, like him the man believes
>> that it is of profound significance that physics cannot give even a
>> probabilistic answer to the question " if 2 perfect copies of you are made
>> and one goes to Washington and one goes to Moscow  which city will you find
>> yourself in?". Well of course physics can't give an answer to that because
>> not every string of words that happens to have a question mark at the end
>> is a question, sometimes it's just gibberish. How do I know this thought
>> experiment is ridiculous? Because even after the experiment has been
>> completed nobody can say what the correct answer should have been. It's
>> amazing how good personal pronouns are at hiding nonsense, if instead of
>> asking which city will you see Mueller and Marchal had asked which city
>> will John Clark see then that would NOT have been nonsense, it would've had
>> an answer, and the answer would have been "both". *
>>
>
> *> Add Tegmark to your list of silly people, for he says the exact same
> thing in Our Mathematical Universe:*
>
> *"It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really
> wasn’t specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future
> technology allows you to be cloned while you’re sleeping, and that your two
> copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1. When they wake up, they’ll
> both feel that the room number they read is completely unpredictable and
> random."-- Max Tegmark in “Our Mathematical Universe” (2014)*
>

*And I agree with Tegmark's above statement 100%. What I very strongly
disagree with is the statement "it's impossible to predict what number
"YOU" will see" is a profundity. It's a silly thing to say because in this
context the word "you" is undefined. *


> *> So could it be that all these great thinkers, Marchal, Muller, Tegmark,*
>

*Tegmark yes, Muller probably not but maybe, I don't know much about him,
but in no universe would I call Marchal a great thinker.  *



>> *>>Standish demonstrates a keen grasp of the obvious!  Of course
>> Schrödinger's equation can be deduced from observation, historically that
>> is exactly how it was found. But nobody would have proposed such a crazy
>> thing if the results of experiments hadn't demanded it. Yes it can be
>> derived from pure mathematics, that is to say it has no mathematical
>> errors, but an infinite number of equations can be derived from pure
>> mathematics that contain no mathematical errors however very few of them
>> have anything to do with physics and many of them have been experimentally
>> proven to be wrong. *
>>
>
> *> **Standish made some basic assumptions about the nature of
> observation, and then showed how one can, starting only from those
> assumptions, derive the Schrödinger equation deductively, (not
> empirically).*
>

*If a conclusion is based on an observation, and his is, then it is an
empirical conclusion because the Dictionary on my iMac says "empirical"
means "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure
logic".  As I said before, Standish demonstrates a keen grasp of the
obvious. Standish describes historically how Schrodinger's Equation was
discovered, the only difference is that Schrodinger found it in 1927, I'm
not sure exactly when Standish figured it out but I have a hunch it was
after that date.*

*> The more things are clumped together within a given volume, the lower
> the entropy of that system is.*


*That is true for some types of entropy, but the exact opposite of that is
true for entropy that is produced by gravity, and gravitational entropy is
BY FAR the dominant form of entropy in the universe.  *

*>>> the early universe could have begun in a maximum entropy state, where
>>> everything was at thermal equilibrium. However, due to the expansion of the
>>> universe *[...]
>>>
>>
>> *>>That is impossible. The universe couldn't have been born in a maximum
>> entropy state because the expansion would cause the entropy to become even
>> larger. The reason comes down to gravity, for a gas high entropy means that
>> the gas is spread out evenly, but when gravity comes into the picture high
>> entropy means that matter is clumped together, like in a Black Hole. In the
>> early universe matter was spread out very evenly so it had very low
>> gravitational entropy. If the universe had been born at maximum entropy, it
>> would have started as a collection of black holes, not a smooth plasma.*
>>
>
> *> That's false. Black holes only have maximum entropy for a given volume.
> They have less entropy than the same mass spread out over a greater volume.
> This is clearly evident from Bekenstein's bound calculation. Maximum
> entropy is proportional to (mass * volume).*
>

*No. When you take gravity into consideration entropy doesn't behave in the
same way it does in high school chemistry. The Bekenstein-Hawking
gravitational entropy of something is proportional to the SQUARE of its
mass and is proportional to its AREA, not its volume. They aren't opposing
forces; More Area = More Entropy  and Less Area = Less Entropy.*

*Your confusion may arise because in everyday life if you pack more mass
into the same volume the density goes up, but for a black hole, as mass (M)
increases the volume grows so much faster (M^3) that the average density
drops. The largest known black hole has a mass of 66 billion suns, but its
density is less than that of water and is only slightly denser than the air
that we breathe. *

*> in the early universe (say when it was a quark-gluon plasma) was likely
> at or near a maximum entropy state (for that epoch of the universe).*


*No! If you want to calculate the entropy of the universe during the
quark-gluon plasma era, or any other error for that matter, the positions
of quarks and gluons is of trivial importance; the important thing is the
gravitational entropy, it's about 10 trillion times larger than all other
sources of entropy combined. Nearly all the entropy in the universe is
contained within black holes, the super massive variety being the most
important. *


* John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260225/3d202b91/attachment.htm>