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

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
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.

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

Once the world created its own categories, and then created relationships between the categories, and then created numbers and assigned the numbers to the categories, then there were logical consequences, known only to the source of logic and knowledge, i.e. low-level consciousness.

(The high-level, executive-level, need-to-know consciousness of living things should be distinguished from fundamental, low-level consciousness.)

E.g., once the world created a space category, with 3 dimensions (X, Y, and Z), with associated numbers, and with inter-dimensional relationships such that Pythagoras' theorem holds true, then the number pi is seemingly a logical consequence, known to the source of logic and knowledge, i.e. known to low-level consciousness.

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/ agency and logic/ knowledge/ consciousness.

Lorraine Ford
There are no such things as free-floating, objectively existing, Platonic numbers, that the real-world system somehow, mysteriously, knows about and utilises.

Like anything, numbers can only be known about because of real-world relationships that exist between real-world categories, relationships that connect numbers into the real world.

So, real-world numbers can only exist as real-world relationships between real-world categories, where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing (a number) that has no category.

Real-world pi too, can only exist because of real-world relationships that exist between real-world categories. In this case, pi is a deduction that relies on the existence of inter-dimensional relationships in the space category, inter-dimensional relationships such that Pythagoras' theorem holds true.

Real-world pi is not a free-floating, objectively existing, Platonic number, but a calculation which approaches a limit; real-world pi is a logical deduction that relies on the existence of inter-dimensional relationships in the space category, relationships such that Pythagoras' theorem holds true.

It is in this context that we should be thinking about a “time” category in the world: in the context of a world where low-level logic/ knowledge/ consciousness exists.

Lorraine Ford
How long can science continue to get way with promulgating the myth that at the foundations of the world exists a mathematical structure?

The point I’m making is that clearly, something created the structure, something knows the structure, and something moves the structure, BUT IT ISN’T A GOD, with all the nonsensical intellectual baggage that exists around ideas of a God: it is the world itself that did it. At the foundations of the world exists something creative and conscious.

This is the type of world we live in: creative and conscious, but with structure.

While physicists continue to think in terms of a mathematical structure at the foundations of the world, a mathematical structure that miraculously moves itself, they will continue to be confounded by time, and by human (and animal) consciousness and creativity.

Lorraine Ford
Re the abovementioned creativity:

I think I should add that the creativity of the universe is, obviously, very limited when it comes to the individual small parts of the universe (particles, atoms, molecules) creating some aspects of their own “bodily” outcomes (as opposed to 100% of outcome numbers being fully determined by law of nature relationships).

It is only when it comes to organisms, and organisms working together, that creating some aspects of one’s own personal bodily outcomes becomes significant (e.g. moving one’s own body parts to write or speak words, moving one’s own body parts to plan for and make weapons, moving one’s own body parts to fire guns).

However, I think physicists would rather eat their own feet rather than admit to the fact that we live in a type of world where people really, really, genuinely do, freely create their own bodily outcomes; we live in a type of world where people, and people working together, really, really, genuinely do, CAUSE outcomes like wars.

The physics “measurement problem” only occurs because physicists refuse to believe that we could live in a type of world where matter really does have a level of control over its own outcomes.

Lorraine Ford
Re physics “measurement problem”, and what physics is actually saying about the type of world we live in:

People are not fooled by what physics (and much of philosophy) is saying about the world.

People have the impression that physics is saying that every child killed or maimed in war was inevitable, only because that in fact is what most physicists are, in effect, saying about the world, with their equations, and their quasi-religious view that matter is fully puppeted by the equations.

Physicists are fully aware of what they are saying about the world. I guess that there are some people who are too young or naïve to fully grasp what physics (and much of philosophy) is saying about the type of world we live in.

Because of their quasi-religious beliefs, physicists can’t accept that we live in a type of world where matter (particles, atoms, molecules, and living things including people) really does have a level of control over its own outcomes, i.e. matter can jump its own numbers.

When physicists (and philosophers) start facing facts about the type of world we live in, they can then start to consider the nature of the “time” category.

I see time simply as a measure of duration.

Here is a conclusion of a recent paper I submitted to Synthese:

"While time has been called the fourth dimension in many circles, I submit that motion, being more intrinsically connected to space and dependent on the lower dimension, should be more seriously considered by the scientific community as the fourth spatial dimension. Beyond that, as force is intrinsically dependent on motion, it could be seen as a fifth and final spatial dimension that defines physical reality. Further still, the complexities of force and motion replicated in different forms of pathways and histories seem to point to the concept of possibility, which is a non-spatial concept that exists within the consciousness of living beings and leads to the existence of other core existential concepts such as will and choice."