Taken as a whole, this series of essays creates a huge mystery to me. The mystery is thus: if this scales using the model and theories proposed here, let's say it scales to 1 billion or more thought token attractors, will we start to see this thought universe exhibit the same kind of things we see in the physical universe? For example, does the infinity affinity influence the geometry of this space? Is there a cosmological constant in the universe of thought? We probably won't know the answer to that for a long time, but to truly get there that magnitude branches experiments will have to happen with every language on the planet. And of course, we see affinity arise between the languages. The question becomes, does the infinity affinity influence the geometry of space?
Further this idea, we can perhaps conceptualize these models as a Pauli matrix-based ideation system. So let's think ahead to the time when quantum computing is powering these models, with each branch of the tree being able to provide multidimensional axes. What will we see as output from these models? Quantum computing may also contribute to the nondeterministic nature of these models, bringing additional creativity and perhaps unpredictable hallucinations. Unpredictable hallucinations are what biological systems would consider evolution. After all, biological systems try regardless of predictable outcomes, even if they are predictable at the molecular level. We see that they are clearly not predictable in nature and biology. While we can strive to predict them, it is unrealistic to think that evolution can be predicted. Do you think we will probably observe the same phenomenon if we ever figure out this whole quantum computing thing? Perhaps the noise, quantum computing, and lack of achieving parity between the tangled resources. And the question becomes, what kind of architecture fits best for these models and their nondeterministic outcomes? Does the work to create the von Neumann architecture in the world of quantum computing really make sense from a support the large language model perspective?
Taken as a whole, this series of essays creates a huge mystery to me. The mystery is thus: if this scales using the model and theories proposed here, let's say it scales to 1 billion or more thought token attractors, will we start to see this thought universe exhibit the same kind of things we see in the physical universe? For example, does the infinity affinity influence the geometry of this space? Is there a cosmological constant in the universe of thought? We probably won't know the answer to that for a long time, but to truly get there that magnitude branches experiments will have to happen with every language on the planet. And of course, we see affinity arise between the languages. The question becomes, does the infinity affinity influence the geometry of space?
To clarify, I'm talking about meta metaphysical geometry, as abstract thought models do not have to physical geometry.
Further this idea, we can perhaps conceptualize these models as a Pauli matrix-based ideation system. So let's think ahead to the time when quantum computing is powering these models, with each branch of the tree being able to provide multidimensional axes. What will we see as output from these models? Quantum computing may also contribute to the nondeterministic nature of these models, bringing additional creativity and perhaps unpredictable hallucinations. Unpredictable hallucinations are what biological systems would consider evolution. After all, biological systems try regardless of predictable outcomes, even if they are predictable at the molecular level. We see that they are clearly not predictable in nature and biology. While we can strive to predict them, it is unrealistic to think that evolution can be predicted. Do you think we will probably observe the same phenomenon if we ever figure out this whole quantum computing thing? Perhaps the noise, quantum computing, and lack of achieving parity between the tangled resources. And the question becomes, what kind of architecture fits best for these models and their nondeterministic outcomes? Does the work to create the von Neumann architecture in the world of quantum computing really make sense from a support the large language model perspective?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02583