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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 1:26 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*>> Give me a fundamental definition of the word "time" or even "change"
>> using just pure mathematics and without using any ideas from physics, I'd
>> really like to hear that!   *
>>
>
> *> To get something like an "evolving 3 dimensional structure"
> mathematically, you merely add another dimension, and use that dimension to
> track how different states of that 3-dimensional structure such that
> different states of it are different at different positions in that 4th
> dimension,*
>

*They are both dimensions so why is time different from space? When Euclid
or Pythagoras wanted to calculate the distance in flat space they didn't
need a minus sign, but when Einstein needed to calculate the distance in
flat Minkowski spacetime for special relativity he did need to include
a minus sign. How come?*

*>> The fundamental difference between a book and a Turing Machine is that
>> one can change but the other cannot, so one can perform a calculation but
>> the other cannot. And that's also why Nvidia is the most valuable company
>> in the world and Penguin Random House is not.*
>>
>
> *> More attempts at introducing red herrings.*
>

*If that's the best rebuttal you can come up with then I guess I won that
round.  *



>
>>>>> *"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. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> If you agree with Tegmark, then you agree with Marchal*
>>>
>>
>> *NO!! The way Marchal threw around personal pronouns made it very clear
>> that the man LITERALLY didn't know what he was talking about, I don't agree
>> with everything Tegmark said in his book but, unlike Marchal, he
>> did LITERALLY understand the words he was using. *
>>
>
>
> *> Here is Tegmark
> <https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm/page/194/mode/2up?q=%22It+gradually+hit+me+that+this+illusion+of+randomness%22>.
> I have highlighted the pronouns for your convenience, since you seem to
> have missed them:*
>
> *Page 194 — 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 (Figure 8.3). When
> they wake up, they’ll both feel that the room number they read is
> completely unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible
> for you to upload your mind to a computer, then what I’m saying here will
> feel totally obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be
> as easy as making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning
> experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each
> time, you’d in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones
> you’d written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time.*
>
> Which "you" is Tegmark referring to when he's talking about dozens of
> clones being duplicated?
>


*Tegmark makes it very clear that when he refers to "you" he is referring
to anybody or anything that remembers being John Clark before the
duplicating process occurred.  By contrast Marchal never made it clear what
he meant by "you", or much of anything else for that matter.  *
>
>
>> *> Since you still seem confused, I put this together today, and I think
> it will help you understand what I mean by "derive"*
>
> *https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wHZPpB1QOrQU5HmHVOP-FUIq5NL1WPU3/view?usp=sharing*
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wHZPpB1QOrQU5HmHVOP-FUIq5NL1WPU3/view?usp=sharing>
>

*If 38 pages are needed to explain what you mean by a word as simple as
"derive" then communicating with you is going to be very difficult. *


> *>>> You may also find this useful: *
>>
>> >> *Bekenstein-Hawking entropy*
>> <http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy>
>>
>
> *>It's a broken link,*
>

*Sorry. Try this:  *


*http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy
<http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy> *



> *>> The Bekenstein Bound is a physics law that sets a limit on the maximum
>> amount of information (entropy) that can be contained within a given area
>> (not the volume) of space. The formula is S ≤ 2πKRE/hc  where R is the
>> radius, E is the total energy (including mass), and π,K,h and c are all
>> constants. But it's important to understand the difference between the
>> Entropy Bound (a container's capacity) and the Actual Entropy (how much
>> stuff is actually inside the container). *
>>
>
> *>Yes. But note the bound is defined by E*R. In other words mass-energy *
> radius. The larger the radius, even for the same mass-energy, the higher
> the bound is.*
>

*T**he larger an area (not the volume) that encloses a sphere the larger
the maximum amount of information that can be encoded on its surface, but
that just tells you the Bekenstein Bound, the maximum amount that could be
stored, **it doesn't tell you how much information is actually stored. To
know that you not only need to know the area of a sphere you also have to
know the mass of it.*



> *>> A large, spread-out cloud of gas has a very high Entropy Bound because
>> its large area is capable of holding a lot of information, a.k.a. entropy,
>> but its Actual Entropy could be quite low if mass of the gas is small and
>> smoothly distributed. A Black Hole of the same mass has a much lower
>> Entropy Bound than the large cloud because its radius R is small and thus
>> so is its area, BUT small though it is the Black Hole has maxed out that
>> bound. So if you want a given amount of mass to encode as much information
>> as is physically possible then you'll need to concentrate that mass until
>> it turns into a Black Hole.*
>>
>
> *> You are missing a key qualifier (added in blue):*
> *"if you want a given amount of mass to encode as much information into a
> given volume as is physically possible then you'll need to concentrate that
> mass until it turns into a Black Hole."*
>

*If a given area of a sphere (NOT its VOLUME) encodes as much information
as is physically possible on the sphere's surface then it's as massive as a
black hole because it is a black hole. *


*> Note that two atoms can encode more information than exists in a stellar
> black hole, so long as you have unlimited volume in which to place them.*
>

*Two atoms in an unlimited volume cannot form a black hole, they'd need to
be placed ridiculously close to each other. And a  stellar black hole has
far more than two atoms worth of mass-energy .*

*> the current entropy of our universe remains far below its maximum
> possible entropy.*
>

*Good thing too, maximum possible entropy will only occur at the heat death
of the universe. *

*John K Clark*




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260301/18150515/attachment.htm>