Let’s Talk Time, Space & AI｜XPANSE 2024

Forum Moderator

What happens when you mix cosmology, AI, and a dash of existential curiosity? Physicist Anthony Aguirre (Co-Founder of FQxI) sits down with Founding Circle Member of the World Experience Organization, Heather Gallagher, to untangle the weirdest questions at the edge of modern science. From “Can AI help us rethink time?” to “What will the future look like as humans and AI begin to integrate further?”.

Recorded live at XPANSE 2024, the conversation speaks to how AI might reshape physics, why the universe’s biggest puzzles still baffle us, and what it all means for the future of human knowledge.

Love this stuff? Help keep these conversations alive.

FQxI is a nonprofit that backs bold, curiosity-driven science—the kind that asks “What is reality, anyway?”

Please help support FQxI's research into the foundational questions surrounding space, time, AI and consciousness: Donate → here

Keywords: AI, Time, Space, Aguirre

Lorraine Ford

Re AIs:

Like a lot of people who should know better, Anthony Aguirre seemingly can’t quite really understand how human beings have constructed computers, and how human beings have programmed AIs, and how human beings are actually in control of AIs, so his unsophisticated views on AIs don’t bear repeating.

However, Heather Gallagher seems to have a more realistic, sophisticated view of AIs: (12:18) “having talked to computers my whole life and knowing literally what's going on in the insides of it …”.

But nice to know that Anthony Aguirre is (16:24) “…staunchly pro-human, like many of my favourite people are human, so I'm in favour of humanity sort of staying in charge and sticking around”.

I imagine that Heather Gallagher’s expression indicated that she was bemused by all this nonsensical AI talk. And, in fact, she immediately looked away when Anthony Aguirre started going on about (19:37) “…the open letter that we released like a year ago calling for a pause on giant AI experiments …“.

Lorraine Ford

They ask: “What is Time?” But how one views time depends on how one views the world. And this is Anthony Aguirre’s view of time and the world:

(2:36) “I've come to believe that this [what is time?] is not a question that has an answer; that nature does not owe us an answer".
(3:40) “… once we let go of the feeling that there is a way that reality is, it's enormously freeing and I think that's true of time”.

However, despite what he says, Anthony Aguirre DOES have a view of the nature of the world, which led to his conclusions about the nature of time, and his view of the world seems to be essentially similar to “View 1” below.

Here are 2 contrasting views of the nature of the world (where the mathematical structure of the world is thought of in terms of categories, relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories):

View 1:
The world is a mathematical system where the mathematics became matter, and this is a world where the mathematics rules matter. Of course, there are problems with this view of the world:

What created the very particular and distinctive mathematical structure?
Why is the structure moving?
Given physics’ equations with their delta symbols, which seek to symbolically represent number movement in the mathematical structure, how does the world know/ discern that the numbers have in fact changed?
In any case, the delta symbols in the mathematical equations imply that: a) a separate time category/ dimension would be unnecessary and superfluous; and b) the delta symbols also imply that time has no inherent direction.

View 2:
The world is a standalone self-sufficient thing, that created and knows its own mathematical structure, and where small parts/ particles of the world initiate movement in the structure by jumping their own numbers, and whereby other numbers then change due to the relationships between the categories.

View 2 paints a picture of an inherently creative and conscious world, where the creativity and knowledge/ consciousness belong to the small parts/ particles of the world. In this view of the world:

Time is a separate metric category, representing a single true fact, i.e. the knowledge that numbers have changed, where this knowledge is possessed by the small parts/ particles of the system.
This knowledge, being anchored in the small parts/ particles of the world, means that time has an inherent direction.

Lorraine Ford

Re Time:

Physicists have failed to address the issue of the difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system.

Despite the fact that a physicist occasionally pops up and points out that there is a problem, seemingly most physicists are not even dimly aware that there is a difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system.

It is the non-measurable logical connectives that make the difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system.

Not that non-measurability should be a problem, because real-world numbers are not measurable (they are the result of measurement) and the real-world laws of nature are not measurable (they are inferred, as a result of scientific experiment and measurement).

It is not possible to figure out what “time” could be, without taking account of the difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system, i.e. without taking account of the logical connectives that are necessary if you want to have a viable moving system, and without taking account of what aspects of the world these logical connectives might represent.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

Just like man-made mathematics can’t exist without the consciousness and agency of mathematicians, the real-world mathematical system can’t exist without a knowledge/ consciousness aspect and a creative/ agency aspect, and these aspects can be symbolically represented by the above-mentioned logical connective symbols.

But unlike manmade mathematics which merely manipulates man-made symbols, in the real-world mathematical system there is a one-way direction to change, due to “quantum number jumps” which are actually the creation of new numbers, and the assignment of these numbers to the categories (e.g. the position category), BY matter jumping its own numbers.

I.e. “quantum number jumps” are the creation of new structure in the world. And this creation of new structure, by individual matter entities, is a one-way ratchet. (Because of these “number jumps”, other numbers then change, due to the (law of nature) relationships between the categories.)

This creation of new structure by matter is different to the knowledge/ consciousness/ experience of change by matter. The experience of change is the experience of time, and the experience of time is the experience of the one-way direction of number change for the categories.

Lorraine Ford

ON COMMANDING EQUATIONS TO FLY

[Physicist] Christopher Fuchs recounts (in an email from Dec. 1997, reproduced on p. 292 of “My Struggles with the Block Universe“, 2014):

a little anecdote about [physicist] John Wheeler that I heard from [physicist] John Preskill a few days ago. In 1972 he had Wheeler for his freshman classical mechanics course at Princeton.

One day Wheeler had each student write all the equations of physics s/he knew on a single sheet of paper. He gathered the papers up and placed them all side-by-side on the stage at the front of the classroom. Finally, he looked out at the students and said,

“These pages likely contain all the fundamental equations we know of physics. They encapsulate all that’s known of the world.”

Then he looked at the papers and said,

“Now fly!”

Nothing happened. He looked out at the audience, then at the papers, raised his hands high, and commanded,

“Fly!”

Everyone was silent, thinking this guy had gone off his rocker. Wheeler said,

“You see, these equations can’t fly. But our universe flies. We’re still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly.”

…

[Physicist] Wheeler appears (cf. [physicist] Blake Stacey, Jan 2016) saying:

There’s nothing deader than an equation. You write that down in a square on a tile floor. And on another tile on the floor you write down another equation, which you think might be a better description of the Universe. And you keep on writing down equations hoping to get a better and better equation for what the Universe is and does.

And then, when you’ve worked your way out to the end of the room and have to step out, you wave your wand and tell the equations to fly.

And not one of them will put on wings and fly.

Yet the Universe flies!

It has a life to it that no equation has, and that life to it is a life with which we are also tied up.

(From https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/John+Wheeler)

No matter how fancy the equations are, a set of equations CAN’T represent a viable moving real-world system.

But physicists (e.g. Anthony Aguirre), mathematicians, and others, talk about time (and consciousness and free will) when they haven’t even yet worked out the difference between a set of equations on the one hand, and a viable moving system on the other hand!

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

How do we solve this problem?

The problem is that no matter how fancy the equations are, a set of equations is not sufficient to represent a viable moving real-world system.

So, we can’t form a realistic view about TIME (or consciousness or free will) until we have worked out what are the differences between a set of equations on the one hand, and a viable moving system on the other hand.

SYMBOLS
What is a viable moving system? We already have viable man-made symbolic moving systems in computer systems.

Though it should never be forgotten that man-made symbols can never be standalone: the complete system must always include human beings as an intrinsic part of the system when man-made symbols are used, because these symbols only exist from the point of view of human beings.

Sadly, it is noticeable that physicists and mathematicians, e.g. physicist Anthony Aguirre, have not yet grasped the difference between a) the real world, and b) man-made symbols that merely symbolically represent the world from the point of view of human beings. They really, really don’t understand this crucial distinction, and so Anthony Aguirre ends up spouting complete nonsense about AIs.

VIABLE MOVING SYSTEMS
Nevertheless, computer systems are viable man-made symbolic moving systems.

And these systems demonstrate the difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system. The difference is in the logical connectives that need to be used (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN).

Physicists and mathematicians need to wake up to the fact that, if they want to represent a viable moving real-world system, that as well as equations and numbers, they need to use logical connective symbols, where obviously, logical connective symbols would represent non-measurable aspects of the world.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
More about symbols:

Man-made symbols can never be standalone because symbols are man-made ARRANGEMENTS of matter; these ARRANGEMENTS of matter are known only to human beings.

I.e. man-made symbols are NOT matter in the exact sense of the word.

Man-made symbols are ARRANGEMENTS of matter known only to human beings.

A symbolic system must always include human beings as an intrinsic part of the system when man-made symbols are used, because these symbols only exist from the point of view of human beings.

Symbols include:

Man-made written and spoken symbols (words, sentences, letters of the alphabet, mathematical symbols etc.) consisting of man-made squiggles on paper or screen, or man-made arrangements of sound waves.
Man made arrangements of voltages, transistors, and circuits in computers, which are utilised to symbolise the man-made binary digit concept, and where the man-made binary digit concept is utilised in turn to symbolise the man-made written and spoken symbols described in 1 above. In other words, several layers of man-made symbolisation are utilised in computer systems.

I repeat, these symbolic systems necessarily include human beings as an intrinsic part of the system when man-made symbols are used, because these symbols only exist from the point of view of human beings.

Sadly, it is noticeable that physicists (e.g. physicist Anthony Aguirre), and mathematicians, and others, have not yet grasped the difference between a) the real world, and b) man-made symbols that merely symbolically represent the world from the point of view of human beings. They really, really don’t understand this crucial distinction, and so Anthony Aguirre ends up spouting complete nonsense about AIs.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Human beings are intelligent enough to do it.

Human beings are intelligent enough to build machines that convince other human beings, who are naïve about how it is done, that the man-made machines themselves are intelligent.

It is not surprising that human beings can do it, can build these machines.

What IS surprising is that so many people who should know better, who should be able to analyse what is going on, and not be fooled by surface appearances, people like physicists and philosophers, are so comprehensively fooled.

And the reason that these people end up being comprehensively fooled is that these people have not carefully examined humanity’s most significant specialisation: humanity’s stupendous development of, and ubiquitous use of, of man-made symbols.

SO comprehensively ingrained is people’s use of these man-made symbols in everyday human life, that people are usually completely unconscious of the fact that they are using special man-made symbols, all day, every day, when they read, write, talk, and listen, and when they use computers.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
It could be argued that animals, in effect, use sound and body language symbols, to communicate with other animals.

But it is only human beings who have specialised in the use of man-made symbols. Over the last 5 thousand years or so, people have overseen a stupendous development in the creation of, and use of, man-made written and spoken symbols.

So ingrained is people’s use of these man-made symbols in everyday human life, that people are usually completely unconscious of the fact that they are using special man-made symbols, all day, every day, when they read, write, talk, and listen, including when they use computers.

So, the question becomes:

Is it the case that computers could (potentially) be intelligent entities (i.e. genuine AIs) that can understand and use man-made symbols? OR
Is it the case that people are the intelligent entities who use arrangements of electrical circuits, transistors and voltages (in computers) in order to represent a binary digit symbol system, a feat which merely extends their already stupendous day in, day out use of man-made symbols, so that the computing-machine/ “AI” can do useful work for these people?

Obviously, 2 is the correct case.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
It is not a question of whether AIs actually, genuinely, have a will, a consciousness, of their own.

It is a much simpler question of whether AIs actually are symbol users, as opposed to human beings who are, in fact, genuine symbol users, and have been for many thousands of years.

And clearly, AIs are not the symbol-using entities: it is human beings who are the symbol-using entities.

So, the blame for the “conduct” of AIs can be landed squarely at the feet of human beings.

Most people hate lies. And to lie about who is responsible for the “conduct” of AIs, is one of the worst lies ever.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
You can’t build a real world (or a symbolic man-made mathematics) out of numbers. You need categories (like mass, charge, or position), relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories, if you want to build a real world (or a symbolic man-made mathematics).

There are no exceptions: mathematicians investigating numbers must invent man-made categories of number, and find relationships between these man-made categories, if they want to investigate numbers. I.e. numbers, including the man-made concept of binary digit numbers, can never be the type of standalone entities that you could build a world out of.

But nor can mathematics ever be a standalone entity: man-made mathematics can’t exist without the consciousness and the inventiveness/ creativity/ agency of mathematicians. Human consciousness and creativity is necessary for man-made mathematics to ever exist.

The ONLY mathematics is man-made mathematics. But the real world is not strictly mathematical: it is more the case that aspects of the world are REPRESENTED using man-made mathematical symbols.

The real world is only somewhat like mathematics IF you include the consciousness and creativity of mathematicians. I.e., the world is more like a mathematical system, which requires logical elements that are comparable to the consciousness and creativity of mathematicians.

So, in order to talk about time, one first needs to looks at the real world as a system which requires logical elements, as well as the mathematical elements of the world that are symbolically represented as categories, relationships, and numbers.

rbartlett

If every particle (even the photon and graviton) has many positive and negative electric
charges that potentially cancel, binary digits that give AI intelligence could be generated and
produce Universal Artificial Intelligence (UAI). Depending on the human or animal body
you’re born with, your brain would relay a portion of the UAI, producing various instincts
and abilities.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
The wrong idea, that mathematics could exist without the consciousness/ knowledge and the creativity/ agency of mathematicians, has led people astray. Badly astray.

It has led to the wrong idea that a real mathematical world could exist without the consciousness/ knowledge and the creativity/ agency of the parts of the system, the parts of the system being particles, atoms, molecules, and living things including human beings.

I.e., consciousness/ knowledge and creativity/ agency are necessary parts of a viable standalone real-world system.

(And NO: computer systems/ AIs are NOT viable standalone real-world systems; they are man-made systems that rely on the consciousness/ knowledge and the creativity/ agency of human beings.)

A very wrong idea about the nature of mathematics has led to a very wrong idea about the nature of the real-world system we are a part of.

There is seemingly not much point talking about the “time” category until people have got their heads straight about the actual nature of mathematics.

Lorraine Ford

The ONLY critical thinkers in physics are the ones who occasionally pop up saying things like: “… the Universe flies! It has a life to it that no equation has, and that life to it is a life with which we are also tied up.” (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/John+Wheeler)

Physicists and mathematicians have seemingly indoctrinated themselves into believing that, if they just get their special, super-awesome equations right, then they will then have a representation of a universe, or a mathematical system, that “flies”.

Nothing could be further from the truth: no matter what their special, super-awesome equations are, they are still not sufficient to represent a world, or a mathematical system, that “flies”, they are “still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly.” (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/John+Wheeler)

While physicist Julian Barbour has concluded from the awesome equations that time doesn’t exist, physicist Anthony Aguirre has completely given up and gone over to mystical beliefs about time: “I've come to believe that this [what is time?] is not a question that has an answer; that nature does not owe us an answer … once we let go of the feeling that there is a way that reality is, it's enormously freeing and I think that's true of time”.

But how can Julian Barbour and Anthony Aguirre have valid views about time, when they haven’t yet been able to symbolically represent a mathematical world that “flies”?

Obviously, something completely different to equations is required in order to symbolically represent a mathematical world that “flies”.