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

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:21 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.*
>

If you agree with this, then you don't need the negative sign for the tau
(proper time) dimension. The negative sign is a crutch that is introduce
for those that deny everything is always moving through spacetime at c.
Both result in identical predictions, they are two consistent coordinate
systems in complete agreement with the predictions of special relativity.
But one of them is far cleaner, conceptually. The one where all dimensions
have a + sign, and the proper velocity through space time for all things is
always and forever c.


>
>
>> *>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.*
>


I am discussing two alternate (but mutually consistent coordinate
systems). In one, you put a negative sign in front of the time dimension
and say something at rest is at rest in space time. In the other, you say
everything always moves at c through spacetime, then you must use a plus
sign before each coordinate.


> * 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.  *
>


Read Relativity Visualized. It will clear your confusion as it did mine.



>
>
>> *> 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.  +*
>


Where is your evidence for your claim "if you want a working Turing Machine
then you also need matter that behaves according to the laws of physics"
? You haven't presented any. While I have presented substantial evidence
that all computations exist and the physical universe is an emergent
feature of that fact. See:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wHZPpB1QOrQU5HmHVOP-FUIq5NL1WPU3/view?usp=sharing
for
references. Note that you don't need to read 38 pages, the appendix starts
on page 21, and you can get the gist and various justifying examples from
pages 4-8. If that much gets you curious, then proceed to read pages 9-16
which elaborates on why these specific predictions for the properties of
our physical universe fall out from the existence of all computations. See
the Bayesian analysis on page 17 to see why this conclusion is (based on
currently available evidence) is more likely than not.



>
> *>** 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. *
>

Yes in my two atom example, the amount of information encoded (not the
maximum) exceeds the maximum for a stellar mass black hole. This example
exploits the "R" in Bekenstein's formula to compensate for a low "E". Do
you disagree with my calculation in my example? I see you deleted it, so I
take that as a sign that you can't refute it.

Jason


>
>
> *>>> 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/20260304/3657ebb1/attachment.htm>