Lorraine Ford
How could science be different? Well, just like mathematicians tell themselves a fairy story that their equations and numbers represent a self-sufficient world which could exist without human beings moving and manipulating the equations and numbers, physicists tell themselves a fairy story that their equations and numbers could represent a self-sufficient, moving world. Physics could start by not telling themselves fairy stories.

Clearly, the world is not the purely mathematical world that physicists imagined and hoped and believed it to be, because number movement can’t be explained by any sort of equations or functions. Just like mathematicians are wilfully blind to their own presence which animates the mathematics, physicists are wilfully blind to their assumption that the numbers just move, and that no explanation is required.

All that physicists can say is that IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will instantly change, so that there is no violation of the ratios/ mathematical relationships that physicists have experimentally found to exist. But physicists can’t explain the “IF” bit: why any number would ever change in the first place, and why the numbers would continue to change.

    letters and words are in the same category like the comment with numbers only here is a lot more complicated

    so imagine a device that can take and print pictures that zoom in or out magnify or minimize and those can replace parts of the text fast in a special typewriter , than after that there can be made extra links connecting the surface with various colors.

    firstly the human language does not need such complicated story telling
    secondly the human language does not need such complicated story telling

    human language has evolved in an environment with certain grammar based on voice and brain constraints
    to solve certain problems

    the environment is such that the actual language is more or less sufficient,
    maybe the fantasies match the complexity of the environment and culture
    why sci fi has not been written in the 15 century ?

    fantasies , play a role in generating and using artificial models , activate.use the imagination
    that is the first step in science for science new hypothesis generation

    what is the pathway towards better imagination ,
    computer programs externalize / multiply the imagination , the control is those who program them
    that fixes certain imagination structures, by having programable hardware that uses letters is a huge impairmant

    some care only about the result , some wants imagination options i'm in the second category

    the units off measure used in physics are connected with the entire discussion
    more fantasy might mean more complicated/ advanced science

    All that physicists can say is that IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will instantly change, so that there is no violation of the ratios/ mathematical relationships that physicists have experimentally found to exist. But physicists can’t explain the “IF” bit: why any number would ever change in the first place, and why the numbers would continue to change.

    drop a rock in a water pond lots of changes happens without any number

    Life is like one bad adventure. however the graphics is unmatched
    what would be a physics engine based on physical hardware like mixing two solutions that do all the" number calculations"
    .
    so i look in to doing hyper graphics maybe related with language/ (inventing new interaction), what it would be the best for me given my actual experience and goals ?

    will make a few days , maybe a week pause of verifying what is written here on this forum, i assume that among readers are people that can understand and help.

    at the admission at a math bachelor in 2017 ive tried to solve/explain all the problems without any letters, only with sequence of drawings. if the admission hat one or two extra hours i would have completed all the tasks.

    the problem i had was how i should explain with no letters that i'm solving with drawings, typically for example in a geometry problem there are names with letters for the sides of a figure so i used a type of naming with no letters , the problem that an admission like that assume (reading ability)( speech comprehension so the first step was to show how i understand the request than to actually show lots of transofrmations for drawings , than solving the equations with no algebra , because the request was in a way evident after the reading and the drawing showed all the answers to first part of the test , i had to make pathways of evident geometrical transformations that are typically called a proof , the result of that exam was under the necessarily minimum for passing the test .

    confirming what is the expected result is a communication bias caused by react quickly language / behavior/ habits , there is no intent in developing a communication in itself, only the message matter.

    💬 abcdEfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqRstuvwxyz 🗨️

    💬 👂️ 🗨️
    example1

    • i'm going to say something with voice, tongue teeth, and face , look at the other person if he is listening , use the ear to listen to my own voice and to the response about 5 second with ten words after that i will wait about 2,3 second for a reply,
      example2
    • we have a video streaming platform where people can make videos sound and images and other can writte comments
      example 3
    • we are a respectable institution we evaluate prospective students at the highest standards using written tests
      example 4
    • we are a research lab with advanced terminology and technology

    here i'm changing the subject
    a problem is that once you understand this interfaces there could be an intent to fake ,
    so in a one to one conversation a fake smile is detectable because m the wire circuitry is for smile is closer to emotional
    center and a fake one could make a detour ,

    the genuine association of the code(language) with the internal (emotional) states
    , looked from outside how this appear and unveil and what roles plays the self awareness

    is the message really meant or not (human problems)

    in the visual abstract realm anything can be a meaning (for a species of extraterrestrials with high levels of imagination)
    especially simple codes can be ambiguous (some simple codes might not because they spell emergency)
    what enviroment would force et to have visual communication

    if people in the 14 century had maps and made exchange to navigate territory, with the horse/ elephant or by sea or river

    maybe the octopus ET live on a liquid planet like lava lamp soup that has always changing territory , with dangerous regions to be avoided while traveling, and the communications must include always changing maps to avoid and adapt

    the fixed placement of resources for humans also fixes the communication of maps .
    a human is not simply just a human is also the territory he comes from/ lives/ feed, and buildings like an invisible leash/ root . the same static attitude (imovable ) may be applicable to language of mathematics

    doing math means to know how to use brain resources (because those are necessarily) , is an expensive activity
    to develop special attention skills , rare and precious, not redundant and flexible.

    Underlying everything in the world, physicists have found categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or energy), mathematical relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. These three aspects of real-world information are seemingly the basic substance which, when logically aggregated, constitute the various varieties of fundamental matter: no “more substantial” substance has ever been found; no “more material” matter has ever been found. So, rather than these three aspects of information being a “property” of material substance, material substance is seemingly a logical aggregate of information.

    But, as I ask in my essay: why are these numbers moving and changing? The categories don’t change; the relationships don’t change: only the numbers move and change. But the numbers don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change themselves, and the categories and relationships also don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change the numbers. So, I conclude that there is another aspect to the world, which can only be represented as logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE), which are responsible for the above-described logical aggregation of information, and responsible for number movement/ jumps.

    Vladimir Rogozhin

    Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important!

    Vladimir, this is my answer to your 17th May challenge:

    When fundamental-level matter is measured, or calculations about fundamental-level matter are made from other measurements, resulting in categories of information (like mass in MeV/c2, or charge) with their associated numbers, what is the material substance whose properties are being measured? My answer is that there is no material substance other than information which is logically connected (e.g. by logical ANDs) to other such information.

    But what is information itself? The three necessary aspects of real-world information are: categories (like mass or charge); context (like mathematical relationships between the categories); and numbers that apply to the categories. Numbers, without category or context, are not information. Yes/no answers, without questions and other associated context, are not information.

        Lorraine Ford
        P.S.
        Which, I might add, is EXACTLY why computers/ AIs are not processing real-world information, real-world information which has 3 inherent, inseparable aspects: category, context/ relationship, and number. Computers/ AIs are merely processing man-made symbols of information, where there are physically separate symbols for category, context/ relationship, and number.

            Lorraine Ford
            Has matter always had the capacity to, at least sometimes, behave logically, i.e. behaviour which can be represented by logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE)? This is as opposed to categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or charge), which seem to exist in relationships that are represented by mathematical operators.

            But what is matter? Seemingly the most primitive matter is already assumed by physicists to be a hybrid type of thing in which these categories, with their associated numbers, are connected by logical ANDs (as opposed to these categories and numbers being seen as “properties” of matter).

            Unacknowledged logical ANDs have seemingly always been a part of the picture that physicists have of primitive matter.

                Lorraine Ford
                So, in the absence of any other fundamental “material substance” being found by physicists, I’m concluding that the fundamental “material substance” of the most primitive particles would be information of the following type of form:

                (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

                where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the things that can build a materially substantial “particle” of information.

                    Georgina Woodward

                    1. What “load of numbers” are you talking about? Did you not notice that, as well as word symbols representing real-world numbers, I also used word symbols for real-world categories (“mass”, “charge”), symbols for “=”, symbols for brackets, and symbols for AND and IS TRUE? The numbers are only a part of the picture I was trying to portray.

                    2. I think you yourself are perhaps “muddling” symbols of the world with the actual world. Physicists and others have always used word and other symbols for real-world categories (like mass and charge), real-world relationships (“laws of nature”), and real-world numbers that apply to the categories, in order to represent theoretical, experimental and measured aspects of the real world. Are you suggesting that symbols with known meanings should NOT be used to represent aspects of the real world? I’m saying that in order to concisely represent known aspects of real-world primitive particles, one needs to use the above-mentioned AND and IS TRUE symbols, which have known meanings to people.

                    3. “…isn’t material … material existence”: In the absence of any actual evidence of any material substance, I’m concluding that the most primitive material substance can be represented in the above-mentioned way which includes the known aspects of the most primitive matter. Have you got a better way of representing primitive material substance, apart from the words “material existence”, words which pretty much say absolutely nothing about the known aspects of primitive material substance?

                    4. Define what you mean by "information".

                      Georgina Woodward
                      I’m saying that the most fundamental matter, the material substance of a fundamental particle, is actually just information which can be represented in the following type of way:

                      (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

                      where the numbers can be zero, and where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the means whereby a “particle” of information can be built.

                      People know what the word “number” refers to; people know what the words “mass”, “velocity”, “charge” and “spin” refer to; people know what an equals sign is; and people know what the words “AND” and “IS TRUE” are supposed to mean.

                      So, can you provide a better, alternative way of describing fundamental matter?

                          Lorraine Ford
                          The difference between information (like the above purportedly existing “particle” of information) and categories (a group term for things like mass, charge, and position) is that:

                          • Information is always represented in logical connection with other information, using logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE.
                          • Categories are always represented in mathematical relationship with other categories, using mathematical operators and equals signs.

                          The physics equations that represent the experimentally determined relationships between categories (“laws of nature”) essentially say that IF some numbers that apply to some of the categories change, THEN other numbers that apply to other categories will instantly change, so that the relationships between the categories are never violated. Then all further number movement stops, because these relationships between categories can’t explain why the numbers would ever change in the first place, or why the numbers would continue to change. In other words, the relationships between categories can’t explain why the world is continually moving and changing.

                          To explain why the world is continually moving and changing, one needs to represent the world in terms of information, using statements containing logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE to represent the necessary number jumps. But, relationships between categories are essentially rules, whereas logical connections between information are not rules. So, unlike relationships between categories, which can be experimentally verified, it would seemingly be difficult to experimentally verify any specific purportedly existing logical connections between information.

                              Lorraine Ford
                              But (who knew?!!*) that man-made symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world!! I suggested a way of representing a fundamental particle in the above posts, but the written symbols:

                              (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

                              or the same symbols read aloud, are not a particle. Who knew?!!

                              And the same symbols represented in a computer or an AI computer, are not a particle. Who knew? Who knew that symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world? I try to explain this in my essay, and in subsequent posts, but it seems to be a very, very, very difficult concept for many people to understand.

                              *who knew?:
                              Expressing ironic lack of surprise, upon learning something.

                                  Lorraine Ford
                                  The thing about basic matter (and also consciousness) seems to be it’s quality of “AND” and “IS TRUE”, where many things (like mass, charge and spin) are simultaneously true in the one time and place (so to speak, because time and place are also part of the things that are true). This is easily seen in one’s own consciousness, where many things are simultaneously true in the one time and place (e.g.: (the grass is green) AND (the sun is shining) IS TRUE). This seems to show that logical connectives (represented by the following symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE), are just as important and basic a part of the real world as the aspects of the world that are represented by mathematical operators and equals signs.

                                  However, it bears repeating for those poor souls spooked by human creations (i.e. AIs), that symbols representing the above logical connectives (which are symbolised by man-made arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages) are not the actual logical connectives that seem to exist as a fundamental part of the real world.

                                      Lorraine Ford
                                      OMG. These people on the FQxI forums website with their crazy alarmist fearful views about AIs developing minds of their own, and either going rogue, or going to save humanity! And yet, just like the climate change deniers have no idea how the climate works, the AI alarmists and utopians also have no idea of the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work, and they just believe what everyone else (who also don’t know the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work) tells them. It’s truly laughable how a bunch of woefully ignorant people, physicists included, have managed to freak themselves out.

                                      In my above posts, and in my essay, and I think also in my posts to other essay authors, I have tried to explain the nitty gritty, the well-known details, of how computers/AIs are actually made to work, and I’m not sure that I can be bothered repeating myself over and over and over again.

                                      More disturbingly for a supposedly science-based website, is the complete lack of interest in the WELL-KNOWN DETAILS OF HOW COMPUTERS/ AIs ARE MADE TO WORK. It is an absolute disgrace that a type of religious belief has overtaken these people. I expect they will soon all be banging tambourines and shouting “hallelujah”!

                                      More seriously, having badly misjudged the nature of AI, the AI alarmists and utopians are inevitably wasting their own time, and everyone else’s time, barking up the wrong tree.

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          Even the developers don't know the nitty gritty of how the large language models learn for themselves. They can ask what the models have done but humans think in a different way. The speed and amount of processing by AIs can be beyond the ability of relatively much slower human checking ,

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              Unlike all the genuinely learned immunology professors during COVID who could give you a detailed account of how viruses and pandemics work, NOT ONE of the AI alarmists or AI utopians, not one of the “AI researchers” or executives, not one of the videos, not one of the people supposedly “in the know”, could give you a detailed account of how bunches of wires, transistors and voltages, run by computer programs, are supposed to transform into civilisation threatening entities with minds of their own. This is because, unlike the genuinely learned immunology professors, the know-nothing AI alarmists/ utopians are believers in miracles.

                                              ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                  Georgina Woodward
                                                  They are a whole new ball game ONLY for those who know nothing about, who have no understanding about, how computers/ AIs are made to work.

                                                  I repeat: ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                      Lorraine Ford
                                                      I should have said:
                                                      ALL the technical and programming knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work their seeming “miracles” is out there. There are no actual miracles; there is no emergence of potentially rogue, or potentially benevolent, intelligent entities. The actual intelligent entities are the many thousands, probably millions, of intelligent people whose scientific, mathematical, technical and programming work, in many different fields over many years, enabled the development of computers and AIs.

                                                      So, how is it that the AI-fearful know-nothings, and the AI-techno-utopian know-nothings, who are both characterised by their complete and utter inability to explain how computers/ AIs are made to work, and who have therefore developed woo-woo beliefs about AIs based on superficial appearances, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                        Seriously. Apparently, there’s an organisation of very-serious-fellows called “The Monty Python Institute of Future Life” (or some similar name) who write very-serious-papers, and give very-serious-lectures, and make very-serious-videos, about something called “existential wrists” (or some similar term) that you get from AI.

                                                        Apparently, susceptibility to this absolutely horrible affliction is a result of being one of the close to 100% of the human population who don’t know, and don’t consider it is necessary to know, the technical details of how computers/ AIs are made to work. There seems to be quite a few physicists and philosophers currently afflicted by this absolutely horrible “existential wrists” condition. But not to worry, because a little bit of actual knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work will clear up the horrible condition in no time.