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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 3:57 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

 *>** the proper velocity through spacetime of all objects is always c.*


*Yes.*


> *>You only need to introduce a negative sign to the coordinate system if
> you presume that when at rest one has a proper velocity of 0 through
> spacetime.*


*I'm probably misunderstanding you but you seem to be contradicting what
you just said. Far from zero everything is always moving through space-time
at the speed of light, it's just that when you're stationary all your
movement is in the time direction, but if you start to walk then there is a
tiny bit of movement in the space direction and there is a very slight
reduction of movement in the time direction. This isn't just a metaphor,
it's a reflection of the actual geometry of the universe. In physics, it's
called the "Four-Velocity" and is what causes time dilation.*

* But none of this explains why in the physical universe one of the 4
dimensions has properties that are fundamentally very different from the
other 3. The reason for that is unknown and it may be unknowable because it
might be a brute fact.  *


> *> a book describes a Turing machine is not a Turing machine*
>

*I agree. A book contains the information necessary to build a Turing
Machine but information alone is not sufficient, if you want a working
Turing Machine then you also need matter that behaves according to the laws
of physics. And that is something that Bruno could never understand.  *

*>** I am happy that you find Tegmark's language clear enough that you can
> now understand Bruno's point.*
>

*Nope. Tegmark was crystal clear. Bruno was talking nonsense. *


> *>> 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. *
>>
>
> *>You keep returning to this other red herring of area vs. volume. I've
> said repeatedly that I agree with that. Why do you keep mentioning it?*
>

*Because you keep ignoring it.  *

*>> 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 .*
>>
>
> *> Yes, but if you read the Bekenstein bound equation you will see that
> increasing R enables you to increase the amount of information that can be
> represented.*
>


*And this is an example of what I'm talking about. You keep ignoring the
fact that there is a difference between the MAXIMUM amount of information
that can be encoded, and the amount of information that actually is
encoded.  Not everything is a Black Hole. *

> *>>> 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. *
>>
>
> *> **But I wonder if such a heat death is possible if the universe is
> always expanding (and thus always making room for more entropy).*
>

*Yeah, sometimes I wonder about that too.  *


*JOHN K CLARK*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260304/478a01df/attachment.htm>