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

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 8:40 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:11 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? Have you heard Tegmark's description of the universe
>> (from the bird's eye view) looking like a video tape, while from the frog's
>> eye view of those inside the universe, they see only one frame at a time? I
>> think the only way to reconcile these two consistent views of time and the
>> universe, is to recognize time to be a subjective phenomenon, much like the
>> branching structure of the wave function under many worlds creates the
>> *appearance of collapse* even when there is *objectivcely* no collapse, the
>> nature of our brain's, and how they process and store and remember
>> information along one direction in the arrow of time, creates the
>> *appearance of a flow of time* even though there is *objectively* no flow
>> of time. This upgraded understanding of time, in seeing the objective vs.
>> subjective differences, is in my opinion a requirement before anyone can
>> view physical universes as static mathematical objects, or as consequences
>> of eternal unchanging mathematical truths.
>>
>
> ### This is an excellent exposition and I fully agree with what you write.
> I would like to discuss the meaning of the word "subjective" here. This is
> a loaded word, directly related to the even more dangerous notion of
> "consciousness", the devilish idea that so confuses the best of us. I don't
> know about you but I find it difficult to achieve the feeling of epistemic
> closure when I consider how my vibrant and colorful subjective experience
> lives within the austere structure of mathematics, even though on an
> intellectual level I fully accept that I am a small mathematical object
> embedded in a larger mathematico-physical reality. This may very well be a
> function of my inadequate ability to process abstract ideas rather than a
> failure of the ideas themselves but still I have a feeling that something
> is missing.
>

This is how I have come to put things together, in a way that personally,
works for me. It is a story that when told, links directly and
constructively, the existence of simple integers with the rich sorts of
conscious experiences we all have:

1. Assume integers exist.
2. If integers exist, then so too exists all the true statements that can
be said about the integers: 7 > 3, 11 is prime, 2 + 2 = 4, etc.
3. Among the set of true relations between integers are particular
equations, known as universal Diophantine Equations [1
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/2272832>, 2
<https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-mathematical-society-new-series/volume-3/issue-2/Undecidable-diophantine-equations/bams/1183547548.full>,
3 <https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Universal_Equations>],
these are equations which have solutions when certain computable relations
hold, for example, if and only if the program represented by the bit-string
*X* outputs the bit-string *Y*, will the universal Diophantine equation
have a solution when the values *X* and *Y* are included as values in the
equation.
4. There are thus Diophantine Equations whose true solutions represent the
computations of all Fibonacci numbers, all primes, all chess moves Deep
Blue would make given any board position, the evolving states of Game of
Life universes, or anything else that is computable. It is thus a true,
provable, mathematical fact that we can form statements such as: "The *N*th
step of program *X* in input *I* results in a memory state *S*" -- these
fall out as basic truths concerning certain programs that we can "run" on
universal Diophantine equations. Thus, within pure arithmetical truth
concerning relations between numbers, we can find truths that reflect
evolving states of computations, and prove things about the memory content
(the state S) of such computations.
5. Since the known laws of our own universe (as far as we know) are
computable, then there is even a Diophantine equation whose solutions
mirror the evolving physical state of our Hubble volume, down to the
accuracy of particle interaction.
6. Now let us think what true statements we can make concerning the
contents of such solutions to such a Diophantine equation, for instance, we
could say it is a true fact, that:
a. Among this equations solutions we can find (within the memory states *S*)
structures like galaxies, stars, and nebulae.
b. Among these solutions, we find some planet-like objects that develop
self-replicating structures (life)
c. Among these solutions, we find some intellignet and self-reflective
(conscious) life forms
d. Among these self-reflective life forms, we find philosophers who are
puzzled by their own mind states which represent true facts about the
larger structure of which they are a part of (they have conscious
experiences)
e. It would then be a mathematical truth that such philosophers discuss
these ideas amongst each other, and even come up with words like
"consciousness" and "qualia" -- (note this is a directly provable
mathematical fact)
f. In some equation, there is a life form whose brain state exactly mirrors
your own present brain state as you read this sentence right now.
g. We can further prove (if we examine the traces of the patterns in your
neuron as represented in this program state *S*) that there are thought
patterns associated with wondering about your own consciousness in this
moment (assuming you are).

So once one accepts there are truths concerning relations between integers,
it becomes unavoidable that among these provable truths, we can
truth-statements concerning the mind states of brains that embedded in
universe-like computational simulations. Since the set of computations that
exist mathematically is unbounded, some of these mind states will perfectly
mirror our own.

This leads to the next question: can we know whether we exist in a *physical
universe*, or in one of these *platonic computational universes*? As far as
I can see, there is no way to subjectively distinguish the two. The best
recourse is to turn to Occam, and eliminate one of these as an unnecessary
redundancy. Since arithmetic is a much simpler TOE than that of physics, I
think it is more correct to dispense with the far more complicated
assumption that there is a separately existing physical reality, and keep
the arithmetical reality (which already explains the emergence of apparent
physical realities -- while the reverse does not seem possible).


>
> I am trying to demystify my subjective experience in the following way: I
> say that all mathematical structures have their individual qualities that
> define them in relation to other mathematical structures. The number 4 has
> this unique quality of "fourness", not present in any other number, just as
> the number 3, connected to it by the relationship of subtracting 1, has the
> unique quality of "threeness". This is not to say that these numbers have
> some sort of panpsychic conscious quality to them, just the opposite: The
> individual qualities of numbers are incommensurate with each other (each of
> them is unique) and with my own individual experience. On the other hand,
> we can group structures by similarity; numbers have the quality of
> "numberness", legs have the quality of "legness" and some strange series of
> brain states have the quality of consciousness. Consciousness, in this
> view, is not something epically unique and mysterious but rather yet
> another unique quality out of the infinity of ineffable qualities present
> in mathematical reality.
>

Yes, the set of possible qualitative states is, in my opinion, as rich and
varied as the set of possible mathematical objects. We think there are only
3 primary colors, but this is not a physical fact. It relates directly to
our biology and organization of our mind. But a differently organized
sensory system and brain, could have, 4, 5, 6, ... 100, 10,000, 1 billion,
distinct primary colors. And then all the X^billions of associated color
experiences resulting from that billion-dimensional space. This shows
clearly that qualia are better understood as mathematically defined
informational/relational states, rather than anything related to atoms or
particles.

I write about this a bit in the section "Unlimited Potential" near the
bottom of this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/195RNlMKZd5ayWwTd45M48sfhonDEyRZQ/view?usp=sharing
You may also be interested in the section "Why Qualia Feel as They Do"
which is the parent section to the "Unlimited Potential", or the parallel
section "Why Qualia are Extraphysical"

(If you are interested in the full set of documents I have written about
consciousness, you can find them here
<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-SMVWgQFfImXNRRuuB9kQwhgxPLAwxYL>.)


> Sure, it's a pretty nifty thing to have, and I really want to keep it
> going, but as far as mysteries go it's just one of many.
>
> So here is my solution to the difficulty in achieving epistemic closure on
> the problem of consciousness: Behold a reflection of the universe in each
> drop of rain and let the nagging question of consciousness be washed away
> into the infinite sea of mysteries that is mathematics. (No, I won't say
> "Like tears in rain", that would be too cheesy)
>

By change I was reading Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind" today, and
there was this relevant passage to the question of time, which came from a
conversation with Kurt Gödel, in which Gödel says:
"The illusion of the passage of time arises from the confusing of the
*given* with the *real*. Passage of time arises because we think of
occupying different realities. In fact, we occupy only different givens.
There is only one reality."

I think Gödel's answer, though cryptic sounding, gets to the heart of the
issue. There are a number of what I call "ego-centric illusion", that
mistake indexical things like "now", "here", "this branch", "this body",
"I" as defining what is real, but Gödel recognizes these are contigent
givens defined by particular, finite. self-scoped perspectives of the
whole.  "Here" is only a property of the person saying it. "Now" is only
the consensus of a given set of contemporaries one considers, and likewise
even "I" can be seen as an indexical illusion, defined by the limited set
of memories and experiences accessible to the given neurology in question.
Abandoning this final illusion leads to Kolak's Open Individualism
<https://archive.org/details/springer_10.1007-978-1-4020-3014-7> / Zuboff's
Universalism <https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/item?openform&item=zuboff>,
which for millennia has been considered the deepest realization one can
make, described variously as moksha, nirvana, enlightenment -- seeing
oneself not in the given of one particular being, but in the reality of all
conscious beings everywhere.

Abandoning the centrality of Earth in the Cosmos, of the Sun in the Galaxy,
of this Branch in the Multiverse, of this Time in Spacetime, are just the
baby-steps that lead up to that final holdout of presumed speciality: of
this person in the set of all persons. Then one can understand that all
times in spacetime are equally extant, all branches in the multiverse are
equally real, and all persons in the set of all persons are equally me.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260301/a1956378/attachment.htm>