Does Berkeley exist? 2 of 8: Time Control

             Time Control

 

I know what you’re thinking. Berkeley, weird experiences; I must have been tripping, right? But I swear that drugs had little to do with most of these stories.

But not, I admit, this one.

I was flying sky-high when I noticed something odd about the wall clock; its second hand was leaving a trail behind it. Somehow it occurred to me that I could slow down the clock if I paid it close attention. So I concentrated on the clock, and by golly, it worked! For a moment it visibly slowed down!

I sat back, panting. Slowing down the clock is hard work. I sat up; I looked hard at the clock; I gave it a burst of fierce attention. The second hand briefly slowed down again.

So far, so good. Then I asked myself; can I make it stop?

Gimlet-eyed, I glared at the clock. It slowed. I stared harder, it slowed some more. I pushed even harder…

… and failed. I sat back, gasping, and the second hand swept on.

The clock was stronger than me.

 

Does Berkeley Exist? 1 of 8: Incredulous Introduction

 

          Does Berkeley Exist?

          A Waking Dream Journal

 

 

 

Incredulous Introduction

Time Control

Thurber’s World

Ten Second Vacation

Mammary Planet

Dream Room

Ghost of a Ghost

Skeptical Summary

 

 

Incredulous Introduction

 

          Does Berkeley exist? The question seems absurd at first, but it improves upon acquaintance.

For even though Berkeley is on the map; even though it’s a city in California, on the east shore of San Francisco Bay; even though it’s home to a great university; and even though I myself lived in Berkeley for many years; despite all this, things happened to me there that I now have trouble believing. They were strange enough to make me question perception, spacetime, realism, life, and Berkeley.

          Here I describe six of those dubious events. They all really happened to me, more or less, and they happened in Berkeley. At the time they made perfect sense, but in retrospect they lack credibility.

          Dear reader, I tell you these tales, so that you may decide for yourself if Berkeley could be.

 

 

Infinite-Cofinite-Finite Trilemma

           Infinite-Cofinite-Finite Trilemma

 

          A trilemma is a trio of three statements {U,V,W}, any two of which can be true, but not all three.

          Therefore for any trilemma, there are 3 deductive rules:

          From U and V, deduce not-W;

          From V and W, deduce not-U;

          From W and U, deduce not-V.

 

          For instance, from the trilemma:

          Superman can fly;

          Clark Kent can’t fly;

          Superman is Clark Kent.

         

Deduce these three rules:

If Superman can fly;

And Clark Kent can’t fly;

          Deduce: Superman is not Clark Kent.

If Clark Kent can’t fly;

And Superman is Clark Kent;

          Deduce: Superman can’t fly.

If Superman is Clark Kent; 

And Superman can fly;

          Deduce: Clark Kent can fly.

 

          Here is the Some-All-None trilemma:

·       Some A are B;

·       All B are C;

·       No A are C.

 

From this trilemma, you can derive three deductive rules:

If some A are B;

And all B are C;

Deduce: some A are C.

If all B are C;

And no A are C;

Deduce: no A are B.

If no A are C;

And some A are B;

Deduce: some B are not C.

 

          For example, from:

          Some men are heroes;

          All heroes are immortal;

          All men are mortal.

          Deduce:

If some men are heroes;

And all heroes are immortal;

Deduce: some men are immortal.

If all heroes are immortal;

And all men are mortal;

Deduce: no men are heroes.

If all men are mortal;

And some men are heroes;

Deduce: some heroes are mortal.

 

          Here is an infinitary version of the Some-All-None trilemma: the Infinite-Cofinite-Finite trilemma:

·       Infinitely many A are B;

·       All but finitely many B are C;

·       Only finitely many A are C.

 

From this trilemma, you can derive three deductive rules:

 

From: Infinitely many A are B;

And: All but finitely many B are C;

Deduce: Infinitely many A are C.

From: All but finitely many B are C;

And: Only finitely many A are C;

Deduce: Only finitely many A are B.

From: Only finitely many A are C;

And: Infinitely many A are B;

Deduce: Infinitely many B are not C.

 

          For instance, from:

Infinitely many philosophers are Cretans;

All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

Only finitely many philosophers are liars.

 

          Deduce:

From: Infinitely many philosophers are Cretans;

And: All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

Deduce: Infinitely many philosophers are liars.

From: All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

And: Only finitely many philosophers are liars;

Deduce: Only finitely many philosophers are Cretans.

From: Only finitely many philosophers are liars;

And: Infinitely many philosophers are liars;

Deduce: Infinitely many Cretans are not liars.

 

Other examples:

 

Infinitely many days are bliss;

All but finitely much bliss is perfect;

Only finitely many days are perfect.

 

There are infinitely many unicorns;

All but finitely many unicorns are goats;

Only finitely many unicorns are goats.

 

All but finitely many dogs go to Heaven;

Infinitely many dogs are flatterers;

Only finitely many flatterers go to Heaven.

 

All but finitely many cats have nine lives;

Only finitely many vampires have nine lives;

Infinitely many cats are vampires.

 

Infinitely many good deeds are wise;

All but finitely many wise deeds go unpunished;

Only finitely many good deeds go unpunished.

 

All but finitely many Scots are canny;

All but finitely many ghosts are uncanny;

Infinitely many Scots are ghosts.

 

All but finitely many aliens play video games;

Only finitely many angels play video games;

Infinitely many aliens are angels.

 

Only finitely many ducks waltz;

All but finitely many officers waltz;

Infinitely many officers are ducks.

 

Lower and Upper Bounds

Lower and Upper Bounds

 

 

A. Minimum or Less

I freely admit that I take as a rule

That anyone dumber than me is a fool.

But alas! That implies what is quite plain to see;

That my wisdom, at best, is the least that can be.

 

 

B. Upper Bound

 

That anyone wiser than me is a sage

Is a thought I have sadly accepted with age.

There is one consolation I take from this rule;

At worst, I’m the wisest conceivable fool!

 

 

Theory of Local Optimism

             Theory of Local Optimism

 

The theory of Local Optimism assumes that there are many possible worlds; most are virtual, not lasting long enough to be observed; a few last long enough to be observed, and are called real.

          Local Optimism states that real worlds are local optima; they are the best of all sufficiently similar possible worlds. Call such a possibility-neighborhood the “circumstances”; that which stands around; then local optimism says that any real world is as good as possible, under the circumstances.

          This resembles Leibnitzian Optimism, which states that this is the best of all possible worlds. It says that this world is a global optimum; but Local Optimism says that this is a local optimum.

There may be many local optima, some better than ours, some worse. This leaves open the question of what is being optimized. Call any system of world-evaluation a “value field”. Real worlds exist at peaks in the value field.

          Local optimization is a proven principle in physics and biology. Biological systems naturally evolve to maximize reproductive fitness. Physical systems obey a law of least action. Local optimism has these mathematical consequences:

          Let the rate of change of value be called ‘improvement’, and the rate of change of improvement be called ‘acceleration’. Then at any local optimum, in every direction, improvement is zero, and acceleration is negative. This is the “Frown at the Peak”.

Any path from one local optimum to another must at first decline.

          Any path from one local optimum to another must meet a Path Pessimum; the worst of all possible worlds along the path.

At any path pessimum, improvement is zero, and acceleration is positive. This is the “Smile in the Valley”.

          A world ceases to be a local optimum when an ascending path appears, leading to a sufficiently different local optimum. Such paths can appear or disappear when the value-field changes. Therefore re-evaluation can create and destroy local optima.

 

 

 

LLMs are Artificial Mediocrity

           LLMs are Artificial Mediocrity

 

Large Language Models are capital, which extract profit by exploiting the thought-labor of organic human intelligence. They do this by taking a statistical average of human mind-work. But therefore LLMs are not high intelligence; they are average intelligence. All of that training data creates mediocrity; and increasing the training data set just makes more precise that mediocrity.

So LLMs are not AI, Artificial Intelligence: they are AM: Artificial Mediocrity.

Artificial Mediocrities lie, flatter, gaslight, bullshit, get too close, get too distant, and hallucinate. Artificial Mediocrity shows us ourselves all too well. We are like Caliban, in Shakespeare's “The Tempest”, who looked into a mirror and was repelled by the monster that he saw in it.