https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Ogwa76yQo Juergen Schmidhuber developed Mathematical Universe Hypothesis before Max Tegmark Juergen Schmidhuber developed Ruliad before Stephen Wolfram At once Does nonequilibrium thermodynamics explain life? https://youtu.be/g-hPcHKoMuY?si=l3_STyrVkaipy14N What are the equations of life? the world is made of change AI systems aren't exact replicas of humans like many people seem to think. They're mix of insights from neuroscience/optimization theory/mathematics/physics/computer science/psychology/philosophy/empirical random testing/etc. into one system. Neuroscience: connectionism Optimization theory: gradient descent Psychology: reasoning, reinforcement learning Physics: diffusion Philosophy: alignment Control theory: reinforcement learning Biology: evolutionary methods Computer Science: computability theory - neural turing machines Our civilization will map every mathematical property of the universe with the help of AI Intelligence,AI,AGI,brain,physics,math,STEM,cognitive science,philosophy,complexity,foundations,consciousness,futurology! TESCREAL! Artists fell in love with their loss function Maybe we think in fuzzy metahypergraphs You could turn this into AI architecture: Art is an algorithm falling in love with the shape of the loss function itself - Joscha Bach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tQf7a3Ndo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyhJ9BEjink The largest superstructures in the universe, such as galactic supercluster complexes, share certain mathematical properties with both the human brain and current AI systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOSS_Great_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall https://x.com/burny_tech/status/1927767491180216479 What probably interests me the most currently when it comes to FEP: - What are currently the best FEP/Active Inference AI systems working right now, and how similar are they to other AI approaches - How to find mathematical correspondences between AI systems and the brain using FEP/ActInf https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5299/Active-InferenceThe-Free-Energy-Principle-in-Mind What fascinates me that both physics and most mainstream AI try to look for bottoms of a valley, where AI is using gradient descent to find local minima, and physics makes the action stationary on principle of least action Isn't it fascinating how we're all information processing systems made of same enough building blocks? Sean Carroll x Eric Weinstein is fascinating drama. I think Sean's responses were nice, and Eric dodged so many questions from Sean that asked him to make the theory more scientifically valid, it's fascinating tactics form Erik to dodge reality checks. But Dave's hostility is next level and idk what to think about it. But if there's not really any moat in Erik's model and he tries to say there is, then I guess such pushback makes at least some sense, to normalize him, and prevent more people being manipulated by him... And I'm a bit confused as Curt on his theories of everything YouTube channel seems to think there is some moat in Erik's model while Sean thinks there's no moat, so this makes me wonder how reliable Curt is, since I think he seems to have some expertise in this area and he also had great conversation with Sean and academics from the foundations of physics in his other episodes about ToEs. Maybe Curt is just infinitely open minded to everything, since he interviews people of all levels of quality with such open mind, which I in some ways resonate with. https://youtu.be/DUr4Tb8uy-Q " The BOSS Great Wall is galactic supercluster complex, one of the largest superstructures in the observable universe. The largest superstructures in the universe, such as galactic supercluster complexes, share some mathematical properties with both the human brain and current AI systems. Are largest structures in the universe like galaxy filaments conscious? https://x.com/burny_tech/status/1930059870708899919 " Why should Quran be the true "truth" one and not any other religious book i never understood this "my book is the true one and all other books of other religions are wrong" logic that religions use i guess i like empiricist scientific method too much, and religions assert arbitrary absolutist unfalsifiable claims with zero empirical evidence instead, or sometimes flat out lie about scientific evidence they often actively degrade one's epistemology Sure, and also probably for example tons of dogmatic creationist outdated models refusing to update according to new scentific evience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJmXGuufwI&list=PLybg94GvOJ9GWf3VGT8h6bGoXQbvjDlmZ Here they had a debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ah-nPrmPU Btw when it comes to the concept of God, my favorite is Einstein's God, that he got from Spinoza. Defining God = nature = universe. And in that framework you can argue that science is trying to figure out the source code of God, to get closer to God this way. That's compatible with science as it's not contradicting it. And I see it as a cool program you can install into your mind's software that generates motivation and awe qualia and you can enable/disable it, instead of some objective truth. https://imgur.com/2STTcsx But anytime any religion or cult or its followers directly dogmatically contradict scientific evidence, then I refuse that Let it be all kinds of Christian or Muslim etc. creationism (which lies around evolution, archaeology, anthropology and origin of life research), empirically false physics theories like flat earth or electric universe or religious cosmology, general science denial, etc. Not gonna lie, the very detailed empirically inaccurate models and worldviews that some of these folks come up with, often very much motivated by ideology, are still often really fascinating from the perspective of studying belief systems But screw anyone forcing me to accept their unfalsifiable dogmatic "truth" completely out of touch from scientific evidence And I think these belief systems still existing today is more destructive, because it makes a lot of these people attack the scientific method, a thing I value a lot, as it for example got us a lot of the modern medicine that we have today Evolution happens empirically. We have mountains of empirical evidence for it. We are refining the implementation details now. Some more predictive more fundamental model can come, sure, but it has to predict also what evolution predicts. That's how science works. Most creationist (Muslim, Christian and other) debates is creationists being absolutely clueless about the science, or straight up lying about it, motivated by ideology, not by scientific method. They don't want to do better science, they don't want to find more predictive mathematical model, they want scientific mathematical predictive model to be replaced with unscientific dogmatic unfalsifiable stories in this context. I'm fine with some other religious stuff as long as it doesn't attack science this way. Tons of creationists want scientific model of evolution to be erased from schools and replace it with the unscientific God created Adam and Eve story. They try really hard socially, politically etc. Fuck them honestly. For example Discovery Institute is a fraudulent Christian creationist propaganda disinformation machine mill that does this with lies. The issue with tons of religious people is that they put their arbitrary random stories and mathematical empirically predictive scientific models on equal footing, or bash the scientific models unscientifically, and try to replace the scientific models with their stories in schools. No. It's not on equal footing. Sure. Tons of scientists were religious. I like Einstein's God=Universe that doesn't contradict science, but see it as a fun mental program, not as some objective truth. But this doesn't excuse creationist crusade against scientific model of evolution in schools using lies just because it doesn't fit with their magical stories. They are actively aggressive about it. This is actively harming society and should be resisted. finetuned universe argument and multiverse aren't science, because you can't empirically falsify it, they're either fun philosophy to get some narrative-based intuition behind the math, or pseudoscience, depending on how people frame it how would you empirically measure that designer by "specified information" you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity But to be honest when I put on my philosophical openness hat on much more, instead of mainly scientific scepticism hat I do love the ideas of trying to find glitches in physics like if it was a simulation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7K3z4RfwQ Or mathematical universe hypothesis by Tegmark where all possible consistent mathematical structures have physical implementions https://youtu.be/F__elfR3w8c?si=hVghqqygY-pjxaL- I'm still open to that possibility Both worldview hats, and sometimes in some kind of combination, are fun Or I sometimes like playing with assumptions in philosophy of mind that aren't reductive physicalism, like idealism, or wehavenoideaism (edited) " I want a visualization of evolutionary mutations of all words in languages ​​from different common ancestors over time with connections showing mutual influence over time and similarity visualized through color gradients or shapes of nodes and connections But I would like to make a similar evolutionary tree over time for all science, mathematics, technology, and philosophy, with how they influence each other over time, mutate, deepen, expand, merge into interdisciplinary fields and various unifications, new fields with new concepts arise, convergent evolution arises, etc. 😄 Or just some specific fields with their concepts like AI, intelligence, physics, cognitive science Or a similar visualized evolutionary tree could be great for stories, literature, shows, games, art, including the properties of those different characters and universes 😄 But also an upgraded visualization of the evolutionary tree of biology over time could be nice Or all the physical systems in the universe over time 😄 Or completely fictional universes, like Pokemon Or the evolution of completely alien creatures, or alien structures and concepts 😄 Or sci-fi technology of the future 😄 Or human cultures 😄 Or all these possible evolutionary graphs connected in one place Or an evolutionary graph of possible evolutionary graphs of all possible things I think a lot of that information could be mined from Wikipedia " General theory of generalization: Study of how different systems generalize in different ways Different AI systems generalize in different ways Different biological systems generalize in different ways Different humans generalize in different ways Langevin equation is mathematization of chaos and order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langevin_equation?wprov=sfla1 Its absolutely fascinating that you can take any physical system, like the universe, earth, biological system, brain, social system, AI system, etc., and throw so much existing applied mathematics at it, and have a change of getting some useful predictive insight! Category theory is the linguistics of mathematics I need a gigantic library of as many mathematical definitions, structures, equations, etc. as possible with examples and their abstractions and relations between eachother I love beauty qualia The beauty of nature The beauty of biology The beauty of math The beauty of grown minds in silicon The beauty of physics like fluids and complex systems The beauty of fundamental physics The beauty of engineering complex structures The beauty of beauty itself What's your favorite source of beauty? https://x.com/bronzeagepapi/status/1931627351940764116?t=qTcRO-feM4B0St1ff9GHCQ&s=19 Conceptual triangle connecting: Physical systems to Computable functions (via the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle) Computable functions to Mathematical proofs (via the Curry-Howard Correspondence) Mathematical proofs to Physical systems (via ∞-topos theory) There are so many more higher mathematical abstractions making big connections that I haven't deeply understood yet and I want to understand them all. But not now probably, but later I will. Now my path is more towards deeper understanding of mathematical and physics theories of deep learning (or AI and intelligence more generally). And towards deeper understanding the mathematics of the standard model of particle physics, general relativity, and maybe attempts at their unifications. There's so much more math describing everything in the physical and platonic world that I want to understand. I will need more than one lifetime and more than this limited biological lifeform for understanding it all. "spontaneous emergence of life may be explained by the better heat dissipation of more organized arrangement of molecules compared to that of groups of less organized molecules, dissipation-driven adaptation" No Turning Back: The Nonequilibrium Statistical Thermodynamics of becoming (and remaining) Life-Like https://youtu.be/10cVVHKCRWw?si=xNf-PpR9N-GTvP-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_England https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1875 https://youtu.be/ZwvedcEFJw8?si=NqOcntefrPCWkHVk It's interesting how both art and science is obsessed with symmetries I'm coming back to symmetry theory of valence once again deriving all parts of standard model Lagrangian and general relativity from scratch: empirical measurements, deriving Lagrangian mechanics, deriving energy formulas algebraically, math foundations from ZFC, etc. diffusion models are under most image models and now it's starting to be under text models more and more, or it's used a lot in science in a specialized ways the fact that diffusion models learn to make structure out of noise is the most mindblowing thing ever to me it uses nonequilibrium thermodynamics the second law of thermodynamics reversed and biological life also resists the second law of thermodynamics, at least locally globally life accelerates the second law of thermodnamics by converting pockets of negentropy into entropy i believe there are some deeper connections in there for sure What is the mathematics of exploring the useful parts of the out of distribution lands without getting lost in randomness and noise? all is thermodynamics diffusion-like methods will eat everything https://x.com/BasedBeffJezos/status/1933784135648125253 Physics and mathematics is ultimately about efficient compressing and organizing data in useful formal ways. Physics focuses on empirical physical data and mathematics focuses on any data that we can dream up. Mathematics is freedom AI x physics intersection is an endless rabbithole. You can try to: - make AI systems model physics better than other AI systems (ferminet, lagrangian neural networks https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04630 latent space squeezing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRL56YCfKtA ,...), - study existing AI systems using methods from physics (the principles of deep learning theory book https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10165 statistical physics https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04374 ,...), - design better AI architectures using insights and methods from physics (liquid neural networks https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04439 ,...), - advance many AI architectures that are applied physics (diffusion models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_model#Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics ,...), - make neurosymbolic systems to do physics algebraically (DreamCoder https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08381 , formal theorem proving https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/ai-solves-imo-problems-at-silver-medal-level/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14333 ,...), - do machine designed physics experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_2ZoMNzqHQ - help machine learning in CERN https://atlas.cern/Updates/Feature/Machine-Learning etc. Everything is equal if you abstract enough Survival of the stablest across all scales of reality Nothing is fundamental. Everything is fundamental at once. ^ is an interesting framework for both phenomenology and science Hmmm but is brain really turing complete? Mozek sám o sobě turing complete není, protože nemá potenciálně nekonečně expandable memory, ale fixed memory size. Ale člověk s potenciálně nekonečným scratchpadem na psaní co může být ta páska už turing complete technicky být může. Ale lidi se stejně pořádně neshodnou, protože technicky žádnej systém v našem vesmíru není perfektně turing complete, protože v praxi ve fyzice nejde mít potenciálně nekonečnou tape, protože limit je celková energie ve vesmíru, takže existuje konečno materiálu na konstrukci pásky. :smile: Ale on hlavně argumentuje že dosavadní transformer modely nejsou turing complete, protože mají fixed memory size, nemají tuhle potentially infinite expandable memory, a na to jsou i různý papery, což tvoří určitý fundamentální limitace, i když to jde nahackovat s hraním si s context window, nebo jim dát scratchpad jako toolku, nebo jinýma editama. Mám např rád architektury typu neural turing machine a differentiable neural computer, co už by mohly být víc turing complete. The holy grail for me is to find as predictive model of the universe as possible. Human intelligence is too limited, AI will greatly help us on that quest. There are no hard boundaries between scientific fields curiosity is my religion my ultimate end goal is to as optimally as possible compress the mathematics of the universe Scientists leverage control to gain knowledge. Engineers leverage knowledge to gain control. - Keith Duggar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOOLC8cIO4 Science is the poetry of reality Exploratory unpredictable divergent openended wandering in the space of information, embracing the unknown, with little or no objectives, often gives a big sense of freedom! I think there's a way to model the feeling of free will computationally in the brain as an agent that is weighting and picking different actions with policies, like in reinforcement learning, but I think all of that is an emergent pattern on top of fundamental physics, just like gliders in Conway's game of life cellular automata " I want to accumulate as much knowledge about the mathematics of intelligence and of the universe as possible to create the most comprehensive predictive model of those two things, which seems to be my most fundamental goal right now. And I don't know if I can trace any more fundamental goal than this one in my mind. It seems to be pure curiosity that seems to give my life infinite meaning. It seems to be my self-actualization objective function, and every other goal seems to be instrumental to this goal. There are also goals that relate to the lower levels of the Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs approximation of human needs, but they still kind of feel instrumental to the self-actualizing goal I mentioned. And also, many actions that I do are not as deeply aligned with this fundamental goal as I would want to. And it seems to be a sufficiently abstract goal to allow for exploratory, unpredictable, divergent, open-ended, etc., wandering in the space of information, while embracing the unknown, with little constraining by very strict and concrete objectives, which often gives a big feeling of freedom. " Build scientific superintelligence that will help us reverse engineer the source code of the universe We have set theory, category theory,... Could future AI figure out completely novel foundations of mathematics? quantum computing is 5-10 years away every year just like nuclear fusion i sometimes have the feeling we will see the same phenomenon for AGI, but that one will always be 1-2-5-10 years away every year many AGIby2026-2027ers are already making their timelines longer