Against AI - My Idea of a Joke (Part 1)

–An Argumentative Approach to a Symptomatic Condition resultant upon prolonged contact with cultural disease vectors resulting from positivist senility. This chapter is meant as both a response and compliment to the works of Roger Penrose ala Alan Sokal. Technicians are not immune to Post-Modern Intellectualism. For the record, this manuscript is a joke in whole if serious in part. Mathematicians were always baffled. Physicists enjoyed the discourse on alternate interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Draft 7.0

i. Introduction–
Some mathematical concepts have no apparent concrete applicability until later, sometimes centuries after their initial inception. Such historical developments have helped given rise to a belief system, akin to religious faith, among many in the natural sciences that indeed everything must be reducible to a mathematical construct. The abstract will always find its niche. According to this positivist reductionist mindset, any problems or concepts currently non-reducible will someday be addressed and answered by the same approach which has proven so fruitful for 19th and 20th century science. This dubious philosophy essentially advocates that our civilization has reached a point where our understanding of nature has reached the summit, with just some pieces of the puzzle remaining.[1] One may be reminded of their forbearers, the positivist determinists, claiming the same with regard to classical physics in the late 1800s. This chapter will address related topics where such claims are currently being advanced, namely artificial intelligence and emerging consciousness theory. A refutation will be attempted along with some explanation concerning possible cultural transmission routes, which will be termed cultural disease vectors so as to remove any doubt of the author's personal biases or any illusion of total objectivity. The mathematics presented should be taken metaphorically in those instances not consistent with mathematical formalism. Why should the social sciences have all the fun?[2]

[1] See Hawking, 1988.

[2] See Sokal & Bricmont, 1998.

ii. Experience–
Our first step will be an examination concerning existence of reality outside a light cone, which defines the knowable universe, thus linking time and distance. Limited by the speed of light, an event has not occurred until information is received. Due to the high speed of light, the effect is essentially negligible on the earth. However, beyond our small globe the implications are a different matter. For example, were the sun to explode, we would not be aware of the event for about five minutes. It would be outside our light cone for that time. In essence, seeing beyond is the same as attempting to peer over an infinitely tall wall where no communication is possible with the other side. The distance to the wall is entirely dependant upon the speed of light. Our time is t, and we wish to see inside the light cone at time t + it' or t - it'. However these two possibilities may not be treated the same. We know time t - it' occurred because we remember it, although our interpretation is always different than the actual occurrence. A recollection or even a film is not a repeat of the experience. We may only make the rational assumption that the future will occur, although we could consider time to be isotropic though relative, and therefore symmetrical as such. Of course, death precludes any future. A present implies a past; a past implies a future represented (in part) by the present. Each observer occupies a slightly different perspective if only by position, and therefore uniquely views reality in time. This includes another observer on the opposite side of the wall. The present self may only anticipate the future or remember the past. Although the future generally more so, both instances are distorted from actual realities. The subjective "truth" may vary widely depending upon many factors, including distance, interpretation, viewpoint, personal changes and many others. We like to think of science as providing the objective truth. Human beings are irrational animals and may purposely act or believe contrary to all logic. Although formal mathematical techniques might not agree, the human mind may see beyond in a sense, sometimes correctly but often not even close (hence the metaphor). The distorted and impossible may exist in our minds, including untruths and lies. Verbal worlds would not exist to be manipulated by propaganda techniques otherwise. Indeed, we would also not possess intuition, insight or creativity. Hope would not exist.
Another argument, pertaining to quantum behavior, involves an alternate deeper interpretation from the standard Copenhagen view, known as Bohm's Theory. In this theory, every subatomic particle has a perfectly determinate position, where only its motion is considered. Therefore, quantum probabilistic behavior is only the result of our ignorance due to the limitations inherent in our measuring abilities. Wave functions account for particle motions by guiding them in their proper courses. For any given time t we may calculate a time t' given a momentum function. There exists no coordinate space, unlike standard quantum interpretation, but rather a velocity function for guiding the particle through space. However, we can only evaluate it in the standard manner. We are limited by our measuring techniques which are still strictly nonlocal through action at a distance. Although actually different than the standard interpretation of Bell's Theorem, the phenomena will appear the same. A nonseparable wave component is instantaneously capable of transmitting discernable information over any distance, thereby having a preferred frame. However, this practically speaking means that we may actually never know this situation, according to the limits of our measuring process, which is wholly dependant upon the speed of light identical in all frames and memory. Therefore, Bohm's Theory basically provides an explanation for quantum behavior without resorting to the clumsiness of wave function collapses and Lorentz transformations. Observation will still reveal the same results. Bohm's theory has basically an interesting concept particularly regarding our limitations concerning the world. Our senses, aided by artificial extensions and enhancements, will only allow a certain level and associated limit to our knowledge of the universe. An electron exists, although we may only know certain things allowable by quantum mechanics, proven by electric field interactions and the flow of electricity. We do not sense a mere single electron, being negligible to our reality, whereas the combined effect define everything. Being outside the possible limits for our senses, an observer beyond our light cone can effect the universe to a far extent unknown. In an expanding universe, some information will always be beyond the pale. Each individual has a unique perspective and affects the universe differently. Most important, it cannot be proven, only suspected among complex interactions. We can even consider (even and especially erroneously) those things inside our world view which objectively cannot occur due to limitations like the speed of light, something beyond the abilities of even the fastest processor. We can only experience the consequences. Insanity is not like a dreaded computer virus. Possibilities are not probabilities. Are all wave functions probabilities of even greater wave functions or superposition of smaller waveforms? An eigenvalue depends upon perspective.
Although predicted by quantum field theories, neither gravitons nor any associated anti-particle have ever been observed. Perhaps their energy field exist under measurable energy levels allowed by uncertainty conditions. This limit is analogous to cases discussed above. The observable world contains a great deal more matter than anti-matter. This asymmetry may be explained by anti-gravity "outweighing" gravity. Hence, the universe expands by the cosmological constant, and most importantly does not pair annihilate itself out of existence in a blaze of high energy gamma rays. Perhaps an anti-matter universe would necessarily collapse into a black hole, or just appear the same as our own.
Life uniquely interacts with the universe, which may only be experienced singly. Being composed of fermions which may never exactly be the same while identical, the blue prints differ if only slightly by position. Individual life is singular. Identical twins may have the same genetic pattern, but experience shapes a different person. In other words, we are alive through our beautifully ugly uniqueness. We may debate interpretations of reality, whereas a granite rock may not. The universe is deterministic because it represents the past, which was experienced; the future is indeterminate although statistically probabilistic in some cases. We live in a boundary between the two, moving with the vector of time directed and dictated by entropy. We are inefficient; we forget. Inconsistency is a crucial characteristic of human behavior. Failure is a part of the condition, and more than random variables. Motivation is internally influenced by the external. A machine only mirrors its makers skill. Its flaws are determined by outside factors. Pain and emotion are different than simplistic a implies b stimuli. A machine is only as good as it was designed and fabricated. It cannot grow and evolve from a non-unique algorithm. A machine may not make the choice to be wrong. It cannot even babble speculative nonsense.

[3] See Ellul, 1962.

[4] The viewpoint regarding quantum reality as an abstract physical representation, essentially limited by our ability to view it, based on wave-particle duality and complementarity with the classical world. See Baggott, 1992, pp. 81-88.

[5] See Albert, 1992, pp. 134-179 & Bohm, 1980.

[6] Given a nonseparable wave equation of two coupled particles, a measurement carried out, on one, will necessarily affect the outcome of even distant measurements on the remaining electron. Hence, a spin of +1/2 on the first electron will mean the second will have a spin of -1/2. However, this situation may not be exploited to transmit a detectable signal, or carry information nonlocally between ANY two distant points, because we cannot communicate our intentions to carry out a measurement faster than the speed of light(See Albert, 1992, pp. 61-72)