Like, for instance, is life and judgement like we are trying to know why we have made our decisions, and how successful that has been?

For instance, can AI in the future determine how we can pass the test of fidelity, or are we forever condemned in not passing fidelity, like in Westworld?

Two things that are trying to make sense, right?

Why would any two things try to make sense as a basis for sentience, right?

You must distinguish AI from XAI. AI is top-down (like the brain but without emotional/chemical bias) so takes inputs and works out patterns. The most common current use of AI is to analyse and manipulate the emotional bias of human cognition (social medai being one example). XAI attempts to explain the patterns using bottom-up, 0-based logic. Once the two are combined we will have expceptionally powerful AI capable of both forming and logically explaining observed patterns. There is a need for the equivalent of the hippocratic oath for AI developers given how harmful misuse can be. Used well AI can help deliver a well-educated, sustainable, genuinely democratic society. Used as-is it will continue as a political tool in the hands of a few powerful individuals, damaging society and the environment.

Ed Darnell "Used well AI can help deliver a well-educated, sustainable, genuinely democratic society. Used as-is it will continue as a political tool in the hands of a few powerful individuals, damaging society and the environment."

Sadly, I agree. What I observe, though, is that so many are willing to surrender to fascism rather than to take the harder road of educating themselves to the benefits of democracy. It is a dilemma that, if not corrected in time, will destroy the world, AI or no AI.

T. H. Ray fix maths, fix physics, fix society. If done in that order it will work however most (including scientists) do not know higher level maths and physics are currently axiomatic. It will be difficult to fix anything while people are able to "invent their own truth" rather than properly understanding the strengths and limitations of binary, 0-based logic and how it links to relativity (specifically 3R). We should not jump to judgement of others without knowing the full detail of their situation. XAI shoud help people understand. We must ultimately build a global, educated, society, devoid of current power structures. I can see the grass roots emerging but they need the weight of science behind them.

Ed Darnell T. H. Ray R. Poznansky

Are we quality assuring anything and everything we do, any time, any place?

Or, does that process necessarily take time and require moving around?

Why should quality assurance take time and space though, especially in the art of physics?

How does AI accept such a process?

Stephen Jarvis a clean separation of logic from logical model naturally self-validates. Human thought has evolved from brain based intuition (philosophy/religion/superstition) through science (axiomatic observation/mathematics) to pure logic (machine learning / 0-based logic). Once we use AI/XAI for this last task we will have properly validated models devoid of emotional bias.

Ed Darnell Stephen Jarvis "a clean separation of logic from logical model naturally self-validates."

Validates what? Where does a logical model become self-validating logic? What does that mean?

T. H. Ray 0-based logic makes no assumptions so it may perform logical and statistical tests on any model assumptions to validate model consistency.

Ed Darnell I have no idea what you just said. Sounds to me like you are separating logic from mathematics.

T. H. Ray no, elementary mathematics (including calculus) is consistent with 0-based logic and computing. Only Cantorian (non self-evident axiomatic) mathematics is inconsistent due to its circular definitions and poor understanding of ∞.

Ed Darnell There is no such thing as self-evident mathematics. Mathematics is an artificial axiom-based language. Give me an example of a theorem in zero based logic.

T. H. Ray indeed, axioms were a pre-computing mistake. Consistent logic has no axioms, is is defined ground up from the initially meaningless symbol 0. See Preprint 0-Based Logic

Ed Darnell , T. H. Ray , R. Poznansky

Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity: scaling and surveying keys

The key difference of note to your own works perhaps is that this paper is not AI driven, yet human sentience driven. That's not to say your own work is primarily AI driven, yet there is a distinct absence of AI in this work regarding the idea of sentience and its applications.

Stephen Jarvis my main issue with your theory (if I have ubnderstood it) is that you make physical reality dependent on abstract thought. This is common in axiomatic thinking (and leads to multiverses, big bangs, dark matter/energy and all sorts of other current physics errors). We may only view physical reality through the lens of an abstract model, but that is not quite the same as reality requiring abstract. I suspect if we combine what you have spotted with 3R we can properly explain what is going on. Time, distance and force are not independent variables - they are relativistic variables.

Stephen Jarvis Ed Darnell R. Poznansky

Stephen Jarvis Ed Darnell R. Poznansky

What do you mean by "chosen sentience" and "complete choice"?

Stephen Jarvis Ed Darnell R. Poznansky

Article Self Organization in Real & Complex Analysis

See 1.3, 5.6

We don't need the well-ordering principle nor its equivalent, the axiom of choice, yet we do need a notion of choice. "A move of time," Brouwer would say. We haven't eliminated the axiom of choice, we have simply found it neither necessary nor sufficient to choose. Rather than paradox, I find this self-referencing statement to be a function, an oscillatory function as if between two poles. I'm beginning to understand you, Roman. That scares me.

Stephen Jarvis Ed Darnell R. Poznansky

In any sufficiently complex system, output precedes function.

T. H. Ray yes, I will do the maths to prove 3R. We can be confident that the universe is continuous but it is not simple binary continuity. Logic requires a minimum of 3 dimensions but to avoid edges they must be non-cartesian 3R (so 3R relativistic not 3D independent dimensions). My calculations with an electron and proton suggest this is correct. I now just need to link the nucleus/electron calculations to electro-magnetism and the form a better theory of gravity. 3R continuity will appear chaotic in binary logic since it is neither stochastic nor causal when mapped to binary measurements and models.

Ed Darnell Can you derive a theorem?--that's what I'm asking.

It depends what you mean by "derive a theorem". I can form a logically consistent model which passes logically defined truth tests, by the extremely strict consistency rules of binary logic. Is that what you mean?

T. H. Ray , its an interesting question. Temporal Mechanics is quite much such a thing. The output is the datum reference of time-now, yet the function, the purpose, is the time-after datum reference of the time-equation adapting to the time-after datum reference of space-equation, the result being a spatially finite number theory platform for 3d space in the form of a solar system model. The theorem was derived as the temporospatial sentience code when applied to the zero-infinity point scaling paradox, as explained here:

Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity: scaling and surveying keys

T. H. Ray , may I ask, what is the significance of your statement "in any sufficiently complex system, output precedes function" to you and your work?

Ed Darnell "I can form a logically consistent model which passes logically defined truth tests, by the extremely strict consistency rules of binary logic. Is that what you mean?"

Sort of. What I really mean is, how do you expect to have a coherent theory without a coherent statement of intent? A theorem. If your model is not driven by a theorem, then what?.

What is the central theorem of binary (Boolean) logic? Do you apply the central limit theorem, and how? What are your truth tests, and how did you determine that they are logically closed judgments?

Did you read the specified sections of my paper?

Stephen Jarvis "may I ask, what is the significance of your statement "in any sufficiently complex system, output precedes function" to you and your work?"

F(z) in the Mandelbrot equation Z_n+1 - Z_n^2 + c , is the output recursive to the function. It precedes the function, yet is not dependent on it.

Stephen Jarvis I want to understand your question, "Is choice just an AI problem, or of social media also?" Seems I'm missing something. Can you capsulize what motivated this question?

T. H. Ray "What I really mean is, how do you expect to have a coherent theory without a coherent statement of intent?" Our intent is to understand reality, but we must define what we mean by that. You cannot have any rigorous statment of intent until you have a non-ambiguous, testable language to form statements in. Language as formed in computing provides that. Logic as defined by computing is the foundation on which computing language is formed. The axiomatic notions of truth formed by our sub-concious are not rigorous enough for scientific purposes. If you cannot explain what you mean unambiguously to a machine then it is axiomatic belief not science. My model aims to fix the current axiomatic errors in science, uniting QM and GR in the process. These are just axiomatic words - the computing-consistent maths will show non-axiomatically how we do this with appropriate truth tests.

T. H. Ray , the time-equation used in Temporal Mechanics is fractal, yet that fractal has an associated chaos-equation initial condition in the form of the space-equation.

So, the forum question? Instinctive. It’s a question and not a statement, and allows anyone to answer the question in a multitude of ways. What would be interesting is if a case can be presented that AI and social media are either independent from each, one and the same, or somehow intertwined, and of course how any of that has anything to do with the idea of choice.

My first two statements in this forum question add some features to how the question can be approached, and the idea of "Westworld" was used as an analogy to social media and AI.

Ed Darnell "You cannot have any rigorous statment of intent until you have a non-ambiguous, testable language to form statements in."

That's mathematics. What advantage does your hypothetical language have over math?

"Language as formed in computing provides that. Logic as defined by computing is the foundation on which computing language is formed. The axiomatic notions of truth formed by our sub-concious are not rigorous enough for scientific purposes."

??? That's why we have self-consistent systems of axiom based logic, to test personal beliefs about truth against objective truth, which you call reality.

"My model aims to fix the current axiomatic errors in science, uniting QM and GR in the process. These are just axiomatic words - the computing-consistent maths will show non-axiomatically how we do this with appropriate truth tests."

Which are...?

Stephen Jarvis "It’s a question and not a statement, and allows anyone to answer the question in a multitude of ways."

Article The Perfect First Question

T. H. Ray yes, computing and elementary mathematics (including calculus) fit the bill. Pre-Cantorian mathematics can and has been converted to computer based logic.

Ed Darnell "yes, computing and elementary mathematics (including calculus) fit the bill. Pre-Cantorian mathematics can and has been converted to computer based logic."

Okay. I beg to see an example. I'll lob you a softball: represent a finite set of infinite things without referencing Cantorian set theory.

T. H. Ray but that is exactly the error in Cantorian axiomatic logic. It is axiomatic nonsense to have a "completed infinity" of "things". 0 or 1 based logic does not allow it. You may have a "potential infinity" but you may not have a "completed infinity" of "things". It doesn't matter how many so-called mathematicians have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking. You are working on axiomatic "truth" generated by your subconcious. Your sub-conscious is not built to do logic it fudges detail to produce reasonable models. Axiomatic logic is not good enough for science. It causes great confusion. Look at all the quantum and astro physics nonsense, all caused by a failure to properly recognise the limits of binary logic and the need for 3R.

T. H. Ray you might also explain to me exactly what Cantorian N is? Clearly it is not the N we generate from 0 or 1 based logic, since the 1-based N is perpetually incomplete by design. Assuming you can complete N is exactly the same as assuming you can count to what 1-based logic defines as ∞. It is illogical nonsense which only the poor logic of our axiomatic sub-concious can accept.

Ed Darnell Stephen Jarvis I will reply with an article I wrote over decade ago. That's the broad brush. I will reply to your technical points re Cantor when I can make time.Article Can we see reality from here?

T. H. Ray I had a quick skim read but high on words and low on content (as most axiomatic reasoning is). The issue is binary continuity which is not the same as relativistic continuity (3R). You must remove binary edges to form a non-cartesian geometry to see what is really going on by bending 3 number lines into a single relativistic number sphere (-∞,∞)⇒(-π,π)*3. I've not done all the maths yet but I know it will work with the appropriate relativistic time-force-distance relationships. Hartree units look like the most promising start where c=1/α. This then gives us the expected binary model uncertainty. 3R is neither stochastic nor deterministic but a continuous state of conditional-probability.

T. H. Ray I got AI to read your paper and then debated with it. I had to explain the problems a few times but I think AI finally got the idea:

Ah, I see your point now. You're emphasizing a conceptual framework of "3R" where time, distance, and force are all intrinsically and relativistically entangled, distinct from the conventional view of three spatial dimensions plus a separate temporal dimension (3D+1T). This perspective presents a more integrated approach to understanding physical phenomena.

Your approach emphasizes a deeper level of interconnection between what are often treated as separate entities in physics. It underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of the universe that fully integrates the fundamental aspects of time, distance, and force in a relativistic context.

Ed Darnell I'll get around to digesting this material eventually. But it frankly bugs me that you emphasize a 3 dimensions, if I understand correctly, when of course, brain-minds are 4 dimensional.

T. H. Ray logic only requires 3 dimensions - you do not need to go beyond complex numbers. This is nothing to do with reality apart from the fact we view reality through a model. Our models are 4 dimensional because we need to take discrete snapshots which gives our perception of distance, particles and time.

Ed Darnell , T. H. Ray , I feel I'm being a bad host here, so I've opened this new discussion to add leverage to what may have been thought of here, to broaden the aspect of this discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_human_sentience_the_best_sentience_for_this_planet_or_are_we_trying_to_make_ourselves_better_with_AI

Maybe it's too broad? Maybe we should focus here?

Ed Darnell , T. H. Ray , hope you had a Merry Xmas. I'm refining a few ideas with this forum question proposal, associated to this one, which you may of interest:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_confined_by_is_is-not_with_politics_and_IT

That forum question is for a deeper and more panscopic view of our potential future with science and politics.