Ero

You definitely want to ground yourself. There is a way to deeply experience spirituality and still be grounded and a highly-functioning individual. It takes hard work.

It’s moreso about still being able to function in society, to have normal conversations. Above a certain level of drive and vision one is most certainly going to be perceived as unhinged, even if “down to earth”.

Observe that the same proof works for any collection of things that don’t exist, which you can denote A_1 \subset A^C (all things that don’t exist). If they did exist, then A_1\subset A, but this is a contradiction with the intersection A^C \cap A is by definition empty (whereas if A_1 did exist, it would be part of their intersection)

Second one for Hassabis. Science will never be the same.

That’s like saying all “books use words”. Sure, but the nuance is what makes the difference. US is a much more highly-functioning bureaucracy with clear security and technological directive. Afghanistan is also a bureaucracy but you are clearly not moving there. Point is, the EU will face a reckoning for other reasons as well. They have enabled and supported the mafia regime in our country for what amounts to almost 2 decades. There is a very deep level corruption even most western wouldn’t know, because it is hidden for them. Pfizergate isn’t even scratching the surface.

Agreed. All I am pointing to is that what is the administrative structure and regulation of the EU currently is deadweight. And will continue to be until a revitalisation under proper leadership. Thing is, people don’t understand that the fundamental shift that is coming in technology is nothing contemporary organisations and structures can handle. EU is already showing it’s inadequate on that front. None of the latest open sourced models or Apple Intelligence is available there. That should tell you something. I don’t expect it to change.

It’s issue are not the nationalists. They will bitch about everything. It is due to the upcoming technological asymmetry. And green globalism is inadequate at handling that. Individual countries will pull ahead not because but despite its regulations on energy and AI. That will change the leverage the EU has. It has already exported its energy and security to the US. It’s nothing but bureaucracy at this point.

Agreed. But what I was pointing to is the nuance that although this is where the history trends towards, that doesn’t mean EU in its present form is what will achieve that. Same way I don’t think the UN will be the “world government”. The line will be eventually crossed, but that doesn’t mean the horse you bet on will be the one to do it. EU is a technological laggard without sophisticated leadership. Green deals alone will be the death of it, mark my words. My people are in the race and not the audience, so I rather also bet on the right horse.

The EU is failing pretty miserably at that. Lack of systemic and Tier 2 thinking as it relates to immigration, energy, technology and economic security has lead to polarisation that got far-right parties elected not just at the outskirts, but at the supposed centres of the EU - Germany, France and the Netherlands.

Two examples if you are interested in going deeper are Carlo Rovelli's Relational QM (you probably would have heard it, having listened to Kastrup) and Chris Fields's Free Energy QM Interpretation. In general, I believe that all Quantum Information-based interpretations are a step in the right direction by "de-materializing" the underlying ontology. It is much easier to step from information to consciousness as an ontology then it is from objective materialism. One thing you should keep in mind is that even if a theory offers interesting or maybe even correct interpretations, that doesn't guarantee at all its technical correctness. The devil's in the details and that is especially true in science. In case you are also interested in the technical side of things, my advice would be for you to study the Functional Analysis/ Operator Theory formalism and its Categorical lifting. Consider reading von Neumann, John Baez and Alain Connes. My current intuition is to treat entropy as a topological operad and quantum systems as observers themselves (i.e you no longer have a separation between observer and observed).

@Oppositionless You are very in-tune. That's impressive. QBism does indeed use a Bayesian interpretation, however, I would argue it still fails to address the measurement/observer problem and fundamentally believes in the distinction between the two. In that sense, while it proposes what I believe to be an epistemic description in the right direction, it views quantum mechanics as a tool for organizing agents’ expectations and as such offers limited explanatory power when it comes to the nature of physical phenomena in an ontological sense. It gives you no description/ definition of what 'quantum entities' are and why does QM work the way it does. It still does nothing to address the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Absolutely, Hence the name "Geopolitics".

This year's Nobel prize was awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton (Godfather of AI) for providing rigorous mean-field solutions to Hopfield nets and Boltzmann machines. Their work is at the Intersection of Statistical Mechanics and Theory of Computation. This is only further confirmation for the ongoing transition in paradigm. The latest quanta article in fact examines this precise connection above. When asked about it, this is what she said "In both cases, extracting the macroscopic behavior of a system from a microscopic description is difficult." This is where the majority of the work will be done, as part of what I dubbed "abstract/macroscopic-level rationality" in my following response:

Everything is Mind.

I like this analogy. Add the fact you are the fish in the water and it's about right.

This question is the origin of epistemology. Deserves books on its own. Do we ever "truly know" something?

It is because we are fundamentally limited beings. We do not have infinite time or energy, and as such, there are constraints that emerge, since we cannot explore every possibility or configuration. At a certain level of consciousness though, all of that washes away and you become it all.

Btw, forgot to mention, but von Neumann was way ahead of his time. In many technical aspects he is a stage two thinker. I am much more closely aligned with his interpretation that Consciousness is fundamental, than I am with the Copenhagen interpretation. The only step von Neumann was missing was that everything is in fact consciousness.

You are hitting on some of the deepest questions in contemporary physics. Do be absolutely blunt, no one has yet figured it out. This is Penrose's critique of QM and why he states it as an incomplete and a "not even quite correct theory" - because it cannot define what it means to be an observer and what it means to measure something. So what follows is moreso my ontological/philosophical deduction rather than a technical answer (which does not yet exist): Separation of observer and observed is arbitrary/non-existent. This is a fundamental assumption in modern science and it is one that physicists refuse to let go of, which is why they can't reconcile this paradox. The process of 'measurement collapse' I believe is more deeply tied with the concept of minimizing surprise/maximizing 'entropy' - what was previously a superposition of possibilities crystalizes once we sample the world through the Active Inference principle and gain a bit of information. This is what defines the 'direction of time' in all non-deterministic systems.

Yes. This is the undecidability principle in all Turing-complete systems. No matter how much time or computational resources you have, you will fundamentally not be able to know both the exact position and momentum of those particles. You can only infer a probabilities. In the context of particles, this is a fundamental theorem in QM (Known as the uncertainty principle).

@Scholar Sure. To be clear, I don't think we have any disagreements, since I believe you are pointing to some pretty important points I have myself brought up before. Your critique is essentially that of the contemporary notion of 'rationality', as has been defined largely by the works of Newton (determinism), Hilbert (formalism), Russel (logicism) and many more. I fully agree with your assessment of its limitation for handling complex phenomena (which are essentially all of existence). In what has largely been the death of the latter rationality programs through QM's uncertainty principle, Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Turing's undecidability, a new avenue has opened up for redefining what 'rationality' means, one that I place at the root of what I describe as the "Chaos, Entropy, Order" paradigm. It goes something along the lines of : 1) Chaos = Fundamentally unknowable nature of existence. All our models are incomplete (in the formal meaning) and will never be able to fully describe reality. There will never be a 'fundamental theory', because if there were one, it would be undecidable by means of inclusion. 2) Entropy I will skip for now, because it is a very tricky and somewhat unrelated, but the part that is important is that 'rationality' is then defined as the process of 'minimizing surprise', i.e maximizing entropy through the Active Inference/ Free Energy principle, i.e it is the process of iterating on our generative model (which I contest in its present form is science, but will largely transform due to the precise point you are pointing for the failure to reconcile AI models in the current framework ) 3) Order = Abstraction - the definition of "emergence of order" is the existence of layers of abstraction, such that the properties on the level above can be explained and studied without the need to reference the underlying details (i.e forgetting the unimportant parts). Here is where this becomes so powerful: All of the "complex systems" that are undecidable exhibit emergent behavior of some form - Fluids, Plasma, Quantum Systems, Spin Glasses, DNA, Cellular Automata, Turing Machines, NNs - all of them fall within the computational class. Here is the important part - even though we provably cannot know with certainty the position and exact state of the system after some time t, we can still infer global "topological features". This is what: - Boltzman and Gibbs did with Thermodynamics (showing the emergence of global gas properties out of microscopic interactions), - Poincare did with the 3-body problem (showing stable orbits in an undecidable system) - Kologomorov did with turbulence in fluids (microscopically undecidable, yet there are still global properties, such as viscosity, and forms, such as 'vortexes' and various types of flows) - what von Neumann did with Operator Theory for QM, abstracting above the microscopic undecidable nature and proving the macroscopic invariants All of these examples are clearly highly rigorous and "rational" - they work by abstracting away the undecidability into stating global phenomena. It is at the root of what we need to do to transition to the next stage of science.

I see what you mean. I guess your definition of rationality is more related to “linearity”, “closed-form”/“interpretable”, etc. However, I would contest that is not all there is to rationality. Consider that there are highly non-linear, stochastic and emergent forms of rationality, ones that work on the macroscopic level instead of the microscopic. This comes from the process of “abstraction” that I have spoken previously about and it is a large part of my definition of “rationality” (at the root of math). The fact LLMs work in the first place is because we constructed them through this type of “abstract rationality”. And we will keep doing it, building better and better models. And with respect to your characterisation of most researchers, I, believe it or not, largely agree. Hence, why I work at the foundations rather than specialize in a particular field.

Then how are they examples of the limits of rationality if there is nothing rational about them? If you are instead referring to them as the “result of human rationality” and taking their faults as examples for the latter’s limit I will say that they are not even the cutting edge (saying this is as a researcher in the mathematical foundations of AI)

Questioning everything does not mean you have to reinvent the wheel, rather that you will know when a wing or a sail is needed.

@Scholar LLMs are not rational in any sense of the word. They are not “reasoners” and do not possess ability to perform algorithms or abstraction. They are stochastic next-token predictors. So they say nothing about the limit of rationality. Rationality is limited for other reasons. Your arguments about complexity are closer to the heart of the issue. However I would contest that undecidability/ chaos/ non-determinism does not prevent us from making concrete statements about the system. In fact, your description of processing as relationships using maps is part of the language that modern math uses to “rise above” the chaos. It’s called category theory and is at the foundation of what will be the Tier 2 paradigm. For a concrete example, study Poincare and von Neumann. Despite the provable unsolvability of the three-body problem, Poincare was able to prove the existence of unique stable orbits using techniques that later grew into Topology - the field that gave rise to Category Theory! If you are interested in this type of stuff, you should check out my current journal here: