There are many attempts to explain the existence of the universe. Even the observable universe around us is filled with unknowns and numerous unexplainable phenomena, let alone the unobservable universe. Each and every theory proposed is just trying to find an explanation for the existence of the observable universe around us, ignoring the fact that… Read More
Guiding principles of the algorithm
We all know and have seen that an app on the phone is not just the presentable UI that is shown on the phone. It has a whole lot of backend processes running on some cloud server somewhere, a database to store the state of the data running on some other cloud server and if it is a finance app, it potentially interacts with many other cloud-based applications running in many other cloud servers that belong to many other banks, payments gateways and so on. The app that is running on the phone is just a front facing “user interaction tool” that abstracts a network of applications that is doing the actual job in the back end. So, why do we assume that “we as beings” with more complex functions than even the simplest app on the phone will be purely this presentation layer of the body with all its organs? The first and foremost to understand and accept when we start asking ourselves “what is the algorithm of this universe?”, is that, this universe is NOT JUST what we observe around us. Even the visible “sensory perception” themselves are not just what is presented. They are but a string of invisible observations that are not consciously acknowledged by our brains. While the eyes see light reflections, electrical signals are transmitted to the brain, but, we infer an image from this string of “invisible” observations. This, that is observable around us that is consciously recognized and acknowledged by us, is just similar to the presentation layer of that app on the phone. We need to recognize that we need to study and understand the internals of the working of reality around us for which this “sensory observation” acts as a presentation layer.
We can study the internals using the output from the “sensory observations” that we have. But, as I have said in my previous book “Surya Siddanta: The emergence of empirical reality”, any “observation” can be only done AFTER the fact, not during or prior to the occurrence of any event. Hence if we want to study “How the internal functions of the universe is working to generate this appearance of observation”, using information gathered from observations which is “after the fact”, it is plainly not possible. The information is just not sufficient. We need to find a way to gather information from this universe around us “before the fact” or at least “during the fact” to study the universe. As I have said in the book “A research of Shiva: The Enigma”, this cannot be done by “study using the manas”. This is the major problem with the algorithms created for AI. We have tried to create an intelligent system using algorithms formed with information which we have gathered using the “manas” which is just about the appearance or presentation layer and the information is “AFTER the fact”, rather than that which causes the manas to be formed, which is the actual internal algorithm driving the formation of the manas.
To understand and accept that we are emulating the wrong information, we just need to look at the various technologies that we have created. We will find that in not even one technology, that which is visible externally, is the same as the actual internals of the working of that technology. For example, if we look at the working of a battery, the observation says that if we connect the positive and negative terminals of a battery to a torch light, when we switch on the torchlight, the light should glow. The common observation is just the glowing of the light due to the act of switching on the torch. But the actual cause of the light glowing is neither the act of changing the position of the switch, nor the voltage developed between the two terminals of the battery. It is the flowing of the electrons from one terminal to the other when the two terminals are connected through the resistive material, that generates the heat and light. The resistive material reacts by generating heat and hence the light glows. If we wanted to emulate the behavior of a torchlight, we cannot do it by just simulating the voltage difference or the switch. We need to emulate the flow of electrons, which in-turn generates the voltage and then emulate the action of the switch that connects the two terminals to allow or not allow the flow of electrons. We need to emulate the high resistive behavior of the element such as tungsten to react by generating heat, only then have we correctly emulated the torchlight.
Another sample can be seen in driving of a car. While the car has a steering wheel, the clutch, brake and accelerator as the interaction points with the car, the car itself cannot be driven without the engine, the gears, the transmission to the wheels, the fuel that gets the engine to operate and so on, many hidden parts working integrally together. Trying to emulate a car by just creating the car chasis, the wheels, the steering wheels and the externally visible pieces, gives us only a model of the car, not a drivable car, which is our AI. A model of reality without the internal engine that drives that model.
Thus, if we want to emulate the human intelligence to create “artificial intelligence”, we need to emulate not the observation, namely our intelligence, but the internals of the working which generates intelligence as a final outcome. Intelligence is similar to the voltage that develops between the terminals of a battery because of the differential in the collection of ions between the two terminals. Thus, intelligence should not be the primary artifact created. We have to write an algorithm that lets intelligence to develop. Learning is similar to the switch in the torchlight that allows the terminals to be connected to allow the electrons to flow. Thus even emulating learning is not going to get us a true AI that emulates human intelligence. To really emulate human intelligence, it becomes imperative for us to understand the internals of the working of reality around us.
In this and the next few chapters I explain how the algorithm of the universe works to give us this appearance of reality. Subsequently I show how this can be adapted as an algorithm to atleast start experimenting to create a truly AI system. Throughout the explanation of the algorithm, I have tried to bring out the differences in the way we have represented and created the algorithm vs how it is in the algorithm of the universe and why we need to reconsider and redesign even the system that is used to achieve AI. Before we start to understand the algorithm, we need to understand a few concepts that drive and form the guiding principles throughout the algorithm. I have explained this in this chapter.
The starting point (The Brahman)
To set the context, before any other concepts. When we want to look at the internals of the working of reality, we need to understand that currently, it is in what we typically in the computer world call “the maintenance phase”, i.e., where the reality has started and is in the continuous phase of just continuing to exist. Yet, we need to realize that every new event that forms starts at a state where nothing exists related to that event. Further, what should be realized is also that the sequence followed in the formation of a new event within an already existing reality is the same sequence followed to create the very first event at the start of reality itself, when reality did not exist. This creation of the very first event at the very start can be thought of as a specialized case for our understanding. In actual when we see the internals of the working of reality, we find that that it works in a certain manner that just adapts to all scenarios, irrespective of our description or understanding.
So, the start is there “where the truth has not yet been mapped into knowledge”. If we are looking at the start point of a “new event” in an already existing reality, then the start is there “where the truth has not yet been mapped into knowledge related to that event”. For example, prior to the “industrial revolution”, any knowledge related to “the wheel” did not exist, even though other related knowledge could have existed. Thus, for the wheel and all other events that occurred subsequently, the starting point was the “first conceptual thought that occurred of the wheel”. To be understood and clarified here is the concept of the “first conceptual thought”. As I re-read it, I find it is very easy for us to mistake the words, because in our minds we always associate “conceptual thought” to be that which is formed in “some human’s brain”. But, this need not really be the case. Many a time, if we follow through the chain of formation of a thought backward to find what triggered a thought, we will find that the root trigger could very well have been external to us, where an observation in the external world triggered the root thought in us. For example, the very famous example of Newton’s discovery of gravity started with the “apple falling from a tree”, not even sure if it is true. Or the other example is of Galvani’s “animal electricity theory” was triggered because of seeing a frog’s leg twitch to an experiment he was conducting. So, when I talk about the “conceptual thought”, we can trace it back all the way back to the start point where a single insignificant change caused a cascading and accumulation effect to generate a concept.
To understand the starting point of reality itself, we have to see truth similar to that phase where we have “terabytes and terabytes of raw data in a NoSQL database” that is collected by the various applications to be used in data analysis, before any actual meaning or analysis is run on the data. But, there is a difference. While the terabytes of data that we have collected has a rigid format, rigid division and pre-defined meaning and a set of pre-defined qualities associated to it, that which we call “the truth” or “The Brahman” in the formation of reality around us has no such assumptions. Each and every “something”, if such division exists at all, is only because of us, as an observer and if any such thing has a quality at all, it is also because of us as the observer, which has not yet been created. Hence, it can only be considered as that indeterminate, continuous whole.
Hence, to continue further in understanding, we need to form this nebulous, indistinct something, a point where no observer exists, no observed exists neither does anything that is an observation exists. Again why I say a point, it should not be mistaken for a geometrical point or a point in time. As Richard Bach has said in his book in illusions, it “is”. This is not to say that what exists is “nothing”. It is neither “void” nor “vacuum” as is usually described when “no matter” is present. There is “something” which we cannot know, because when we start trying to know it, we form thoughts, then it just became reality in all its glory. This state is called “Shunya”, where “WE do not know what is, but something is”.
Such is the starting point that we need to start at. Making no assumptions, making no observations, knowing nothing, applying no intelligence to it. The Nasadiya suktam says this about this state:
na asad AsIn nO sad AsIt tadAnIṃ na AsId rajO nO vyOmA (a)parO yat |
kim AvarIvaH kuha kasya sharmann ambhaH kim AsId gahanaM gabhIram || 1 ||
na mRtyur AsId amRtaṃ na tarhi na rAtryA ahna AsIt prakaitaH |
AnId avAtaM svadhayA tad aikaM tasmAd dhAnyan na paraH kiM chanAsa || 2 ||
At that time, neither the unreal nor the truth existed. Neither the space nor ether existed. Beyond what and within what was born? Where and under whose protection was the power? How this existed is an inexplicable mystery. Neither perishable existed, nor imperishable at that time, neither night nor day existed, nor it had appearance, breath untroubled inherent that one therefore that one none other like that beyond
While here it is referred to as “that one”, Shankaracharya slokam says that you cannot even consider this as “one, for where is the other” and I tend to agree. The problem is when we try to describe something of such as this which is quality-less (nirguNa), in-coherent (nirvijnana), un-understandable (nirvikalpa), where even adding a description, brings it into existence, we cannot call it anything or describe it as anything. So, I will simply leave it at “The Brahman”. “The Brahman” is the starting point for anything.