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

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 …“.

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.

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
(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
(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
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:

1. 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.
2. 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
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
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:

1. Is it the case that computers could (potentially) be intelligent entities (i.e. genuine AIs) that can understand and use man-made symbols? OR
2. 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
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.

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
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.

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”.

Lorraine Ford
Obviously, in addition to the symbols for equations, categories and numbers, something completely different is required in order to symbolically represent a mathematical world that “flies”, i.e. a viable, moving real-world mathematical system.

So, I’m saying that, in order to represent a viable, moving real-world mathematical system, you also need to use logical connective/ algorithmic symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

But “IS TRUE” is actually what is consciously felt to be, or consciously known to be, TRUE. Because, in the real world that we live in, there is no evidence that such a thing as an objective truth exists, or a Platonic truth exists, or a Platonic realm exists. The only evidence of truth we have is to be found in subjective consciousness. “Right” or “wrong”, subjective consciousness is the actual decider of truth, and IS TRUE represents subjective consciousness.

So how does this apply to “time”? I’m saying that time is about what is consciously felt to be true, i.e. felt to be true by matter (i.e. particles, atoms, molecules and living things including human beings).

I’m saying that time can be represented in something like the following way:

IF (∆position OR ∆speed OR ∆charge) IS TRUE, THEN ∆time IS TRUE

Or, more correctly:

IF (∆position OR ∆speed OR ∆charge) IS TRUE, THEN time = time+1 (or time = time+n, where n is some number)

One needs to use logical connective/ algorithmic symbols not only in order to represent a viable, moving real-world mathematical system, but one needs to use logical connective/ algorithmic symbols in order to represent time.

Lorraine Ford
The difference between a set of equations and a system, is that with a system, the elements of the system can be interrogated about the state of the system, and the state of the system can be adjusted if required.

With our standalone self-sufficient real-world system, where by definition there is nothing outside of it doing any interrogation or adjustment, the basic elements of the system (i.e. the particles, atoms, and molecules) need to know their own state (know the numbers that apply to their own categories) and need to be able to adjust their own state (jump the numbers that apply to their own categories).

The way to symbolically represent this knowledge/ consciousness of the on-the-spot state of the system, and to symbolically represent the creative act of adjusting the on-the-spot state of the system, is with logical connective/ algorithmic symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

I’m suggesting that time is a non-specific marker that the specific on-the-spot state of the system has jumped. I.e. time is a non-specific category of knowledge/ information that is logically derived from specific knowledge/ information about the on-the-spot state of the system

So, I’m suggesting that time is a logically/ algorithmically derived, higher-level category of information, where this knowledge/information is possessed by the elements of the system.

Lorraine Ford
People, with their puffed-up sense of human importance, seem to find it difficult to comprehend the fact that the fundamental-level parts of the system that drives the world, must in fact have a type of knowledge of, have a type of awareness of, their own on-the-spot, special and distinctive categories, relationships and numbers, out of all the possible categories, relationships and numbers that could potentially exist.

This is the basic level of consciousness/ knowledge, consciousness/ knowledge that in effect says that these particular categories, relationships and numbers are true, where this consciousness/ knowledge is possessed by the basic parts of the real-world system (particles, atoms, molecules).

But the time category is seemingly slightly different. So, time is not a dimension, or a category derived from a mathematical relationship. The time category is seemingly the result of a primitive analysis of an on-the-spot situation, an analysis performed by the parts of the system (particles, atoms, molecules, and living things including human beings), that results in the knowledge that something has changed, i.e. the consciousness/ knowledge that one or more numbers have jumped.

Of course, this type of knowledge, possessed by the system or parts of the system, is already assumed in the delta symbols found in physicists’ equations that represent law of nature relationships. But the time category seems to merely register that number jump change has occurred, rather than being concerned about the specific magnitude of the number jumps that have occurred for other categories.

The world, by definition, is standalone and self-sufficient: there is nothing outside of the world meddling in the world.

At the foundations of the world lies, not a mathematical system, but what created, moves and knows (what human beings would symbolically represent as) the mathematical system.

What created, moves and knows the mathematical system is the world itself, and the parts of the world (particles, atoms, molecules and living things including human beings). These creative, conscious parts only exist in the context of the whole.

But what created, moves and knows computer systems/ AIs is human beings, who thousands of years ago created and started using, manmade written and spoken symbols, and recently created and programmed machines to process these manmade symbols. These computer systems, like all manmade systems, only exist in the context of human beings: they are not standalone and self-sufficient.

It is disappointing when physicists and other people fail to look at the bigger picture context in which things like mathematical laws of nature exist, and the bigger picture context in which computers/ AIs exist, and try to claim that these laws and AIs could be standalone and self-sufficient.

Lorraine Ford
The most fundamental aspects of the world are, not a mathematical structure, but what created, knows and moves the mathematical structure.

There is nothing natural about a mathematical structure:

• Factually, mathematics is manmade, and mathematical symbols are manmade, and the existence of mathematics relies on human consciousness and creativity; and
• Factually, people need to use manmade mathematics and manmade mathematical symbols to represent fundamental aspects of the world.

It is in this context that we should be thinking about a “time” category in the world: in the context of a world where the most basic aspects are creativity/ free will and knowledge/ consciousness.

The only way to attempt to symbolically represent these creative and knowledge aspects of the world is with manmade logical connective/ algorithmic symbols.